[Bf-committers] Compositing View Port Proposal
jason.a.wilkins at gmail.com
Wed Mar 28 09:36:54 CEST 2012
You say "DirectX 10" here, but since I'm still developing on my
Windows XP machine I actually am forced to only support DirectX 9
My old box is still keeping me honest.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Tom M <letterrip at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>> * 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
>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> - Campbell
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
More information about the Bf-committers