<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Hi,<br><br></div>For me, supporting 2.1 was more to ensure that we had broader hardware support for blender. My personal aspiration was to jump immediately to 3.3 for blender2.8. The plan was to do this incrementally so the community could adapt to the change. 3.1 sounds OKish, but again, we're leaving some people behind. Whether we do it or not is more a political decision, the technical benefits are quite clear.<br><br></div>We could do the more radical forward looking changes in a branch, but on the other hand we've seen what tends to happen to big branches like that and we decided to better work directly in master. If others also agree too then I would agree to raise the bar to 3.1.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 6 December 2015 at 15:55, Martijn Berger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:martijn.berger@gmail.com" target="_blank">martijn.berger@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"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">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></span><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><span class=""><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></span><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><span class=""><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></span><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><span class=""><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></span><div>I agree. <br></div><span class=""><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></span><div>I think this is a good list of things that we really do want to have. <br></div><span class=""><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" 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></span></div><br></div></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>