20,741
edits
m (→Developer Discussion: structure topics) |
|||
Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
== Developer Discussion == | == Developer Discussion == | ||
=== Integration === | |||
The Compositor is disabled by default at compilation time in | The Compositor is disabled by default at compilation time in | ||
FlightGear (not SimGear). Both Rembrandt and the forward pipeline are | FlightGear (not SimGear). Both Rembrandt and the forward pipeline are | ||
Line 78: | Line 79: | ||
happended with Rembrandt.<ref>https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/36657975/</ref> | happended with Rembrandt.<ref>https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/36657975/</ref> | ||
=== Compatibility === | |||
it is worth remembering that at the moment compositor is | it is worth remembering that at the moment compositor is | ||
identical to the default pipeline and thus there will be no advantage | identical to the default pipeline and thus there will be no advantage | ||
Line 88: | Line 90: | ||
CameraGroup. There are also plans to support Canvas. | CameraGroup. There are also plans to support Canvas. | ||
=== Availability === | |||
Would it be practical to get to a point where both the legacy and | Would it be practical to get to a point where both the legacy and | ||
compositor CameraGroup classes can co-exist at runtime? I recently made a | compositor CameraGroup classes can co-exist at runtime? I recently made a | ||
Line 96: | Line 99: | ||
available to everyone.<ref>https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/36605878/</ref> | available to everyone.<ref>https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/36605878/</ref> | ||
=== Replacing the legacy renderer === | |||
The vision is we would replace the legacy rendering with | The vision is we would replace the legacy rendering with | ||
compositor; this will then allow us to clean up a lot of the hardcoded | compositor; this will then allow us to clean up a lot of the hardcoded |