<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Brecht Van Lommel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brechtvanlommel@pandora.be" target="_blank">brechtvanlommel@pandora.be</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Making a separate thread for this discussion..</p>
<p dir="ltr">* OpenGL ES 2.0 I can kind of understand, but why OpenGL 2.1 compatibility?<br></p></blockquote><div>Personally i think 2.1 could go and we should take sandy bridge opengl 3.1-ish as lowest common denominator for desktop but I do think we should decide explicitly. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">
* Why ANGLE? As far as I know this is for old cards that we already decided to stop supporting.<br></p></blockquote><div>ANGLE brings us a reasonable fallback on windows systems. It is the default backend for WebGL for chrome and firefox so it could bring us a more stable then vendor drivers fallback if things look wrong.<br></div><div>Also it gives GLES 2.0 when no graphics drivers ( or remote sessions are run )<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">
* Why not require OpenGL ES 3.0 as a minimum when someone decides to port Blender to Android / iOS? Support for this seems pretty good.<br></p></blockquote><div>I could live with that as a binding minimum also, I would think 2.0 might be to restrictive to be worth it. Newer devices support 3.0 or 3.1 and better anway. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">
* WebGL 2 will match ES 3.0. If no one is actively working on WebGL support now, why bother with the backwards compatibility?</p></blockquote><div>I agree. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p dir="ltr">I really think we should be able to assume support for FBOs, VAOs, float / half-float textures, instanced draw, and not have to deal with GLSL syntax differences between versions.</p></blockquote><div>I think this is a good list of things that we really do want to have. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p dir="ltr">How is Blend4Web affected by Blender's minimum OpenGL version? What kind of issues would there be if Blender assumed ES 3.0 minimum, while Blend4Web still targets ES 2.0?</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Dec 6, 2015 12:54, "Martijn Berger" <<a href="mailto:martijn.berger@gmail.com" target="_blank">martijn.berger@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi Mike, Brecht, Jason, Anthony and others<br><br><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Mike Erwin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:significant.bit@gmail.com" target="_blank">significant.bit@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Re: Uniform Buffer Objects -- Compatibility with GL 2.1 is a temporary concern, so anything we do there should be minimal and marked for future removal.</div><div><br></div></div></blockquote></div>Is this the case? i would make the argument that we might want to try and keep OpenGL ES 2.0 and OpenGL 2.1 for as long as possible.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Especially on windows keeping ES 2.0 + what ANGLE exposes could really help us have a good fallback. <br></div><div class="gmail_extra">On android and IOS GL ES 2.0 / 3.0 could allow us to run blender there. And even compile blender for Google's NaCl stuf..<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">We should not do this regardless of the cost but we should not discard this without seriously considering if this is feasible.<br><br></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Bf-viewport mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bf-viewport@blender.org" target="_blank">Bf-viewport@blender.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-viewport" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-viewport</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Bf-viewport mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bf-viewport@blender.org">Bf-viewport@blender.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-viewport" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-viewport</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>