On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Luke Paireepinart <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Tristam MacDonald > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 5:11 PM, val <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> if you are to use panda3d, there might be no need to access pyglet >>> anyway, since there are few things a multimedia library can do that a modern >>> 3d engine can not. >> >> >> Calling panda a 'modern' 3d engine is a bit of a stretch. Don't get me >> wrong, I think that their team is doing great work, but the lack of a >> flexible shader and compositor system make to hard to render anything >> 'modern'. >> >> >> What's inflexible about their shaders? You write them in a .sha file and > then call an import_shader() and then model.apply_shader(shader). you can > apply them to anything in the scene graph... I can't imagine it being much > simpler than that. > > -- actual question, as I haven't used a lot of 3d libs. > The shaders themselves are the simple part of a renderer - the complexity is almost entirely in the supporting structures. For even moderately complex effects, you require render-to-texture, and multiple passes over the scene graph rendering different (but possibly overlapping) sets of geometry each time. Panda has a pretty decent render-to-texture framework, but the scene graph is not as easy to pervert in this manner as one might like. For 'modern' effects, you need floating-point render textures, custom vertex attributes, transform-feedback/stream-out, etc. - none of which panda supports at this time. Panda's DirectX backend also is lacking any shader support at all. -- Tristam MacDonald http://swiftcoder.wordpress.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users?hl=en.
