<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body><div>+1 for OpenGL ES 2.0 compatibility. This would allow for better WebGL/Blend4Web integration. We are also ready to share our code with you guys. </div><div><br></div><div>Yuri</div><div> </div><div style="font-size:100%;color:#000000"><!-- originalMessage --><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Martijn Berger <martijn.berger@gmail.com> </div><div>Date: 12/6/2015 14:54 (GMT+03:00) </div><div>To: bf-viewport@blender.org </div><div>Subject: Re: [Bf-viewport] OpenGL low level shader API proposal </div><div><br></div></div><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>
</body></html>