As an addendum to the example I posted, it's possible to add a loop to account for extra lights, but I'd recommend against it, and keep it "unrolled".
I don't think the fixed function pipeline lighting is going to look much, it any, different from what I posted. It's also not a particularly complicated lighting model that can't just be done in a shader (as posted) instead, but I guess one's view on that is relative. On May 10, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Christopher Wright <christopher_wri...@apple.com> wrote: > > On May 9, 2013, at 9:55 PM, Achim Breidenbach <ac...@boinx.com> wrote: >> I don't have any experience with lighting calculations in shaders yet. I >> don't want to dive deep into materials and such, but simply want to have the >> left cube look the same way as the right cube. > > > Getting identical results is actually shockingly complicated. There's a > _ton_ of computation in the fixed-function pipeline, and you'll have to > duplicate all of it. As the number of lights increases, the shader > complexity increases as well. Fully expect the need to dive deep if you're > going to have a complicated pipeline that behaves comparably with Fixed > Function and Shaders with non-trivial GL state. > > -- > Christopher Wright > christopher_wri...@apple.com >
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Quartzcomposer-dev mailing list (Quartzcomposer-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/quartzcomposer-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
