[Bf-viewport] OpenGL ES compatibility

[Martijn Berger]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Brecht Van Lommel <
brechtvanlommel at pandora.be> wrote:

> Making a separate thread for this discussion..
>
> * OpenGL ES 2.0 I can kind of understand, but why OpenGL 2.1 compatibility?
>
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.

> * Why ANGLE? As far as I know this is for old cards that we already
> decided to stop supporting.
>
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.
Also it gives GLES 2.0 when no graphics drivers ( or remote sessions are
run )

> * 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.
>
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.

> * WebGL 2 will match ES 3.0. If no one is actively working on WebGL
> support now, why bother with the backwards compatibility?
>
I agree.

> 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.
>
I think this is a good list of things that we really do want to have.

> 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?
> On Dec 6, 2015 12:54, "Martijn Berger" <martijn.berger at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Mike, Brecht, Jason, Anthony and others
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Mike Erwin <significant.bit at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>> Especially on windows keeping ES 2.0 + what ANGLE exposes could really
>> help us have a good fallback.
>> 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..
>>
>> We should not do this regardless of the cost but we should not discard
>> this without seriously considering if this is feasible.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-viewport mailing list
>> Bf-viewport at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-viewport
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-viewport mailing list
> Bf-viewport at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-viewport
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-viewport/attachments/20151206/5019f2ad/attachment.htm