On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 07:30:46PM +0100, Nils Kneuper wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Am 03.02.2014 18:31, schrieb Lipka Boldizsár: > > According to my limited knowledge on the topic, the point of moving to > > OpenGL was that we would get a hardware accelerated renderer. Now, SDL2 > > does have 2D acceleration and I'm pretty sure that it'd be much simpler to > > port the engine to use that than rewriting the whole thing with OGL. Am I > > missing something here? What advantages OpenGL supposed to have over SDL2? > > The acceleration provided by libsdl2, as I understand it, does not help > considering the way we are drawing things. The main way how libsdl2 can > provide better/faster rendering is by using an opengl render path. Mordante > should be able to provide more information about this since he already had a > look at some basic libsdl2 stuff.
I thought the accelerated drawing in SDL2 was named OGL, but seems to be named 2D Accelerated Rendering [1]. So either I misremember or it has been renamed. So I want to look at using the 2D Accelerated Rendering in SDL2 and not OGL directly. At the moment we use the surface based blitting [2]. This means the change requires big changes to the rendering engine. > Yes, there are concerns about it working nicely on slower systems, but if we > e.g. go the way of using GLES 2.0 it should be possible to support a huge > number of devices, even those relying on open source drivers and got rather > ancient hardware. I hope/expect SDL2 abstracts this for us, but if required I *think* it should be not too hard to use it directly once we changed the rendering to the 2D Accelerated Rendering method. [1] http://wiki.libsdl.org/CategoryRender [2] http://wiki.libsdl.org/CategorySurface -- Regards, Mark de Wever aka Mordante/SkeletonCrew _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
