Hi Robert M. I went through this thread fast and I see you are trying (at least your show case) is lighting and use of shader composition. The approach you are taking is what I was using too, some years ago. But there are other methods that does not require any mods and will work just fine with the existing shader composition features. You can for example encode all the light attributes into a texture buffer object (think of this as an image where each float texel is one light attribute like color, etc).
Have a look at this, it is Forward+ implementation in opensource project https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beSkETJ_vgY We are releasing a new version with F+ lighting available these days, so you might want to keep an eye on it. Cheers, Nick On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Robert Osfield <robert.osfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Robert M. et. al. > > I don't have any answers/recommendations at this stage but one first > reading the proposal has relative to traditional C/C++ features seems > a bit out of place. > > #pragma(tic) shader composition currently have a very close mapping to > C macro's, my hope has always been that because of this close mapping > it'd be quick to pick up and use - this is one of the key reasons why > I went for this approach to shader composition. > > This makes me wonder if C/C++ features itself might be able to inspire > any proposed extensions to #pragma(tic) shader composition. > > Robert. > _______________________________________________ > osg-users mailing list > osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org > http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org > -- trajce nikolov nick
_______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
