having display lists set up BSP trees for you would be nice.
As long as I wishing having OpenGL a command to cull stuff that is not displayed in the current view using the BSP tree it made before rendering the display list would be cool to.
One more time:
OpenGL is a low-level API, ir renders primitives, like lines, points, polygons. The functionality you ask about belongs into a scene-graph.
As i said before openGL should become a higher API!
Originally posted by valmian:
As i said before openGL should become a higher API!
As i said before assembly language should become C++, so I can master C++ and be able to program assembly language in any hardware using C++.
What in a world are you saying? Resay it in logical way. Assembly languege and C++ are diferent langueges! Assembly is like a super low level API languegeisn’t it? (I don’t know assembler I just know C/C++)
In this case, OpenGL is assembly, and you want to make it high level, in the same way as Coconut want’s to make (I think) assembly C++.
OpenGL is, alawys have been, and according to most people here, including me, always should be, a low level graphics rendering API. If you want scene graph functions (judging by all your posts here), then use use special scene graph API. There are lots of them out there. If you start throwing high level features in OpenGL, it will be higher level, which means less generic, which means less flexible and less possibilities.
OpenGL’s market is so wide, ranging all the way from entertainmet applications like games and demos, to proffesional applications like modelling software and data visualization, that adding new high level features simply doesn’t work very well. Adding a specialized feature only benefit a small part of the market. And the more advanced programs always requires more control over the high level features than what OpenGL can offer, so they make their own anyway. So you are left with the beginners part of that specific market. In DirectX, adding high level features may be OK, since it’s aimed towards one specific target; entertainment.
As I said, if you want scene graph features, choose a scene graph API. If you still want to use OpenGL, then choose a scene graph API that is built ontop of OpenGL.
Originally posted by Bob:
OpenGL is, alawys have been, and according to most people here, including me, always should be, a low level graphics rendering API. If you want scene graph functions (judging by all your posts here), then use use special scene graph API. There are lots of them out there. If you start throwing high level features in OpenGL, it will be higher level, which means less generic, which means less flexible and less possibilities.
Bob, I don’t think anyone here is grepping the concept of the “Open” prefix in the term “OpenGL”.
What in a world are you saying? Resay it in logical way. Assembly languege and C++ are diferent langueges! Assembly is like a super low level API languegeisn’t it?
Now that’s irony! I think Coconut’s point was to point out that OpenGL is not the same thing as a higher level 3d graphics API. (Correct me if I’m wrong Coconut.)
Bob, I don’t think anyone here is grepping the concept of the “Open” prefix in the term “OpenGL”.
Huh? How are we not global regular-expression printing OpenGL?
IMHO(extra humble), any suggestions that are application-specific or have nothing to do with putting a pixel on the screen are not going to be appreciated in this forum.
It also means that if can describe your same idea in a non-application specific way, or make it somethings to do with OpenGL, then you may get some attentions here.
How to do it? Well, from the subject.
Originally posted by Bob:
[b]In this case, OpenGL is assembly, and you want to make it high level, in the same way as Coconut want’s to make (I think) assembly C++.
OpenGL is, alawys have been, and according to most people here, including me, always should be, a low level graphics rendering API. If you want scene graph functions (judging by all your posts here), then use use special scene graph API. There are lots of them out there. If you start throwing high level features in OpenGL, it will be higher level, which means less generic, which means less flexible and less possibilities.
OpenGL’s market is so wide, ranging all the way from entertainmet applications like games and demos, to proffesional applications like modelling software and data visualization, that adding new high level features simply doesn’t work very well. Adding a specialized feature only benefit a small part of the market. And the more advanced programs always requires more control over the high level features than what OpenGL can offer, so they make their own anyway. So you are left with the beginners part of that specific market. In DirectX, adding high level features may be OK, since it’s aimed towards one specific target; entertainment.
As I said, if you want scene graph features, choose a scene graph API. If you still want to use OpenGL, then choose a scene graph API that is built ontop of OpenGL.[/b]
Like what? Glut doessn’t help much
Search Sourceforge . This list should give you some interesting stuff.
[This message has been edited by Bob (edited 10-28-2002).]
k, i’ll try