couldn't have agreed more...Interfaces A MUST IN JAVA3D!!!
nitin
-Original Message-
From: Ian M Nieves [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 6:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [JAVA3D] Java 3D or GL4Java (also solution to la rge number
o f geometry pr
Nitin, (and J3D team)
Perhaps it would be a good idea to build Transform3D and TransformGroup
interfaces. Then, implement basic versions of the two, with the existing
functionality.
THEN, allow developers to implement their own custom versions if
necessary. We seem to be seeing that developers
Hi Ian,
I think if I go for GL4Java, I can create my own object similar to
TransformGroup and I would take care that it is very-very light. Probably
contain only one object similar to Transform3D with a single transformation
matrix. This would take care of the memory issues of TGs.
cheers,
Nitin
Hi Florin,
In the approach 2 what we are assuming here is that the group of "30
geometries" can be shared by all the shapes. So, in this case the smalest
unit will no longer be one sphere but the combination of 30 spheres. E.g,
the cube example which you gave, the smallest unit will become "one si
> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:33:35 -0500
> From: RWGRAY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Doesn't this assume you are not interested in *any* kind of transparency or
> rendering order?
Yes, this has been missing from the discussion so far. There's always a
tradeoff.
By decreasing the granularity of
I, for one, have been reading the postings and have found them to be
very informative as I learned more about Java 3D, performance, memory, etc. So
I wanted to let you guys know that it hasn't all been "wasted" energy (: Thank
you.
> My response was fatuous, which I thought would be appa
Doesn't this assume you are not interested in *any* kind of transparency or
rendering order? I thought in order to get the correct depth in
transparency rendering order you *had* to use a transform group to position
the geometry. Otherwise, Java3D assumes all the geometry is at (0,0,0) and
will n
Niltin wrote:
> After being LOYAL to java3D for past one and a half years, I'm now
planning
> to shift to GL4Java because of serious memory and performance issues.
be wise to not fall in the same problems again...
And remender some widely adopted vcards have poor OpenGL
support/performance, and in
list of people using only one
of the two sides.
- Original Message -
From: "Schäfer, Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: [JAVA3D] Java 3D or GL4Java
> >
> > - Original Mes
memeory in j3d.
nitin
-Original Message-
From: Ian M Nieves [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 3:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [JAVA3D] Java 3D or GL4Java
I have worked with both openGL and Java3D, not GL4Java, but I will assume
that this is more or
Ian M Nieves wrote:
The OTHER negative point about GL4Java is that it is bound to OpenGL.
This may not seem huge to you now, and it doesnt even bother me at the
moment, BUT there is no reason to be tied to a particular 3d
implementation. Java3D on the other hand is NOT bound to opengl. A VERY
SMAR
Schäfer, Peter wrote:
At this point, Java3D could gain A LOT if they opened up their low-level
interfaces.
Then programmers would have a choice: an easy-to-use high level interface,
plus access to low level OpenGL features (for those that are willing to use
it).
Yup. You should see some of the shen
> Hardware compatability:
>
> There are two aspects here. Firstly, both Java 3D and GL4Java support
> OpenGL so they should both be happily compatiable with the hardware
> avaiable at the moment (platforms and cards). However, the
> extensions to
> GL (the cool features that you see in games) will
being LOYAL to java3D for past one and a half years, I'm now planning
> to shift to GL4Java because of serious memeory and performance issues.
>
> nitin
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin Glass [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 2:44 P
sues.
nitin
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Glass [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 2:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [JAVA3D] Java 3D or GL4Java
With respect, I don't think its quite that simple.
The Java3D vs GL4Java discussion is much like any ot
With respect, I don't think its quite that simple.
The Java3D vs GL4Java discussion is much like any other argument in
computing, pros and cons.
Ease of use:
Java 3D is, for most people, easier to use, although you have to deal
with an interpretation of 3d programming (SUN's) which may not be as
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Hong Cao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:15 PM
> Subject: [JAVA3D] Java 3D or GL4Java
>
>
> > Hi, All,
> >
> > Anyone ever used both Java3D and GL4Java from
> > http://www.jausoft.com/gl4java/. Which one i
Answers below
- Original Message -
From: "Hong Cao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:15 PM
Subject: [JAVA3D] Java 3D or GL4Java
> Hi, All,
>
> Anyone ever used both Java3D and GL4Java from
> http://www.jausoft.com/gl4java/. Which one is b
18 matches
Mail list logo
