[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu3dkit-discuss] GL slang draft

From: Philippe C . D . Robert
Subject: Re: [Gnu3dkit-discuss] GL slang draft
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:00:43 +0100

On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 08:32  Uhr, Brent Gulanowski wrote:

Real time work is generally more important to my projected needs, so glslang looks more attractive, inasmuch as advanced shading interests me at all. To speak objectively, will choosing glslang result in a skewing of 3DKit toward real time applications? If so, is this going to be an impediment to its usefulness?

I don't think so. The design philosophy of the 3DKit is that everything which is not geometry will be set via shaders. For this we need our shading language, probably a subset of the RenderMan Shading Language. These shaders will have to be mapped to the renderer, so in the case of OGL this might be via slang - that's why I posted this information. Another option would be to implement our own GL based shader, but this is a good approach.


Should not the shader language be directly driven by the choice of renderer? Why should 3DKit have to choose one or the other? The shaders have no impact on the scene graph, do they?

The 3DKit uses G3DShader objects which in turn use our own shading language to specify material properties etc. in a renderer independent way. So to me the question is how to implement a G3DKit Shader -> GL backend translator. In the case of an OGL 2.0 renderer this task could be greatly simplified by using glslang.

Philippe C.D. Robert

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]