> Are there any updates to the Surface LIC issues with ParaView 5.0.x / > OpenGL2?
I am afraid not. It's still on the TODO list. BTW, the issues with LIC & OpenGL2 only affect cases with parallel rendering on more than 1 rank. If you're not using it in such a setup, you should be able to switch to OpenGL2/5.0 without problem. Utkarsh > > Is there a Bug that I should be following for this issue? > > My group uses Surface LIC a fair amount and we're encouraged by the > performance increase of 5.0 over 4.4 so we'd really like to make the > transition. > > Thank you, > Andy > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Utkarsh Ayachit > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Frank, >> >> First of all, thanks for all your exhausting testing, it's greatly >> appreciated! >> >> * OSMesa and MESA_GL_VERSION_OVERRIDE >> >> Communicating with the Mesa team, we learnt that >> MESA_GL_VERSION_OVERRIDE is a bad idea since it doesnt' really create >> the specified OpenGL context. Thus if anything tries to use features >> from the specific OpenGL version, the rendering would crash and burn. >> Working with Brian Paul from the Mesa team, Ken recently pushed a fix >> to VTK (after the RC2) that uses new OSMesa API to create the correct >> OpenGL context. This new OSMesa API will appear in Mesa 11.2, however. >> Earlier version can be patched using the "alpha" patch that Brian >> provided us (attached). >> >> * Classic v/s llvm >> >> Your observation is indeed correct. llvmpipe is the way to go for >> software rendering. On my builds, classic mesa was painstakingly slow >> for rendering even small geometries. >> >> * Issues with LIC >> >> Another correct observation. There are a few regressions in the new >> implementation for SurfaceLIC. Realistically, we may not be able to >> address these before the 5.0 release. If you're using SurfaceLIC >> heavily, I'd suggest building ParaView 5.0 with the older OpenGL >> backend (or sticking with 4.4) for the interim. >> >> * OSMesa + SWR >> >> While currently I am not sure openswr+osmesa builds are possible, I >> wouldn't be surprised if that on the roadmap. I am going to try to >> contact the OpenSWR team to see if they have any thoughts on that. >> >> Utkarsh >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Powered by www.kitware.com >> >> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at >> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html >> >> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at: >> http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView >> >> Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=ParaView >> >> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: >> http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Powered by www.kitware.com > > Visit other Kitware open-source projects at > http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html > > Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at: > http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView > > Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=ParaView > > Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: > http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview > _______________________________________________ Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at: http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=ParaView Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview
