Hi Robert That's sound more reasonnable than what i was affraid to interpret... I'll check on my own, because I'm sure I've something that might help us here...(A thing we discuss long time ago about making VAS a property) I'll make a PR to know your feeling about it
Cheers robertosfield wrote: > HI Julien, > > On 25 November 2017 at 19:02, Julien Valentin > <> wrote: > > > If I don't misunderstood: > > Using a dedicated class for CS would introducing a new base class > > "Dispatchable" for Drawable(vas) and DispatchCompute(no vas) that would > > replace Drawable as Renderleaf. > > Is that what you think about? > > > > Drawable is the base class that wraps up dispatch, I'm not going to go > have a base class for a base class just for the purpose of > DispatchCompute. We have to avoid complicating the OSG class > structure and avoid any CPU over-head associated with adding features, > especially niche ones. > > The issue of VAS is one I'll need to look at, this will need to be > switched off for DispatchCompute. I am not at my dev machine right > now so will look into this later. > > Whatever solution we end up with we'll need an osg::DispatchCompute > that wraps up glDispatchCommpute and it's parameters, this could be > called explicitly as a callback or state attribute. The next step > would be to make DispatchCompute a Drawable and work out how to switch > off the VAS/DispalyList support. > > Robert. > _______________________________________________ > osg-users mailing list > > http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org > > ------------------ > Post generated by Mail2Forum ------------------ Read this topic online here: http://forum.openscenegraph.org/viewtopic.php?p=72469#72469 _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
