20,741
edits
CompositeViewer support: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Potential Issues
m (→Status: https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/37075130/) |
|||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
=== Open Questions === | |||
It would be very nice if CompositeViewer just works. However, James emphasized that we have a very complex display stack, with lots of permutations, and frankly we’re trying to /simplify/ the display layer, in anticipation of VSG in the future, not add more special cases to it. Since we don’t really have a large pool of 3D renderer developers, we need to be able to use a standard one without too much additional work or customisation. | |||
Getting rid of Rembrandt, and making Compositor the only rendering pipeline, will drastically help with reducing the number of code paths we need to maintain. So we should not in a hurry to add a new optional code path we have to test for, and which might interact weirdly with multi-camera / fgviewer / stereoscopic / etc. <ref>https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/37075182/</ref> | |||
=== Potential Issues === | === Potential Issues === | ||
So far, it seemed we 'Cant Use' CompositeViewer because of $reasons in the Effects code<ref>https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/26189393/</ref>. Maybe the reason is simply that it needs some work to move away from the single CameraGroup, however.<ref>https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/37059939/</ref> | So far, it seemed we 'Cant Use' CompositeViewer because of $reasons in the Effects code<ref>https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/26189393/</ref>. Maybe the reason is simply that it needs some work to move away from the single CameraGroup, however.<ref>https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/37059939/</ref> | ||