[Bf-committers] Compositing View Port Proposal

Tom M letterrip at gmail.com
Wed Mar 28 07:00:34 CEST 2012

FBO is from July 2008 as part of the OpenGL 3.0 spec, but since Opengl
3.0 is the designed to support the same features as hardware that can
run direct x 10, which was introduced November 30, 2006 - that means
that it is beyond the 5 year time frame, especially since hardware
prior to that date can also run direct x 10.

Also the frame buffer extension is present in 2006.

Also since we want to support portables we have to switch to purely
opengl es compatible api calls.  FBO is present in the opengl es 2.0
spec and i think earlier versions as well.




On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Campbell Barton <ideasman42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Quick reply on this topic...
> * happy view-port is getting some attention, it needs it :)
> * Project seems ambitious, suggest to provide minimum targets in your proposal.
> * I would feel better about this project if our view-code was in a
> better state, Ideally IMHO this code should be improved before large
> changes like this (draw modes and settings are mixed up and not nice
> from code or user POV)
> * One problem with large changes to our OpenGL drawing is our
> selection code which is tricky - mixed bone/object select, vertex
> select, face & vertex select in weight paint mode - supporting all
> configurations is probably not trivial if you plan to refactor this
> code.
> * Rule of thumb - we support 5 year old hardware, can this be done on
> standard/crappy GFX cards from 5 years ago? - if not is there a
> reasonable fallback which wont complicate things too badly?
> - Campbell
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Mike Erwin <significant.bit at gmail.com> wrote:
>> With all the major stuff you've done for sculpt, what I meant was "if
>> anyone can tackle a tough problem, it's you." Sorry for being unclear!
>> So for instance the 3D view, would you issue one call like "3D view,
>> draw thyself", then composite widgets & overlays on top of that based
>> on a script? Or does it go deeper into how the 3D view is actually
>> drawn? Or am I missing the point entirely?
>> Mike Erwin
>> musician, naturalist, pixel pusher, hacker extraordinaire
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Jason Wilkins
>> <jason.a.wilkins at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Michael Fox <mfoxdogg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Oh yes it is more then a mess, its a nightmare, I am trying to add view
>>>> tessellation option to the view port, and im having one hell of a hard
>>>> time. we defiantly need an cleaning out
>>> I'm curious what you are trying to do.
>>> To answer Mike's question about if I can handle this, yes, I am rather
>>> confident.  The fancy view port could be written along side the
>>> existing one where it can grow features until it replaces the old one.
>>>  That is also good for A-B switching.
>>> Although I want to emphasis generality and programmability, which are
>>> sometimes evil tar-pits, I can start with a very domain specific set
>>> of pieces and replace those with more general pieces as time allows.
>>> In other words, as long as I don't try to jump straight to absolute
>>> best implementation right away I'll be fine.  I think this is
>>> something that can be made to approach "perfection" over multiple
>>> iterations instead of something I get stuck in over my head.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
> --
> - Campbell
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list