20,741
edits
CompositeViewer support: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Open Questions: https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/37076818/
m (→Status) |
m (→Open Questions: https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/37076818/) |
||
| Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
* [https://vsg-dev.github.io/VulkanSceneGraph/docs/Design/HighLevelDesignDecisions.html VSG High Level Design] | * [https://vsg-dev.github.io/VulkanSceneGraph/docs/Design/HighLevelDesignDecisions.html VSG High Level Design] | ||
* https://github.com/vsg-dev/VulkanSceneGraph/tree/master/src/vsg/viewer | * https://github.com/vsg-dev/VulkanSceneGraph/tree/master/src/vsg/viewer | ||
Supporting an '''optional''' CompositeViewer mode does not need to cause any significant problems. The changes to the code are actually very simple and well-defined, and it'll be easy to keep things very separate as things develop. | |||
Jules and James agreed about the need to avoid adding to complexity in the rendering pipeline, and Jules expects as long as care is taken it will be fairly easy to keep CompositeViewer-specific code logically separate. | |||
Jules hopes that CompositeViewer is fundamentally risk-free, in a way that most significant changes to a project like Flightgear are not, because ultimately OSG CompositeViewer is a very simple generalisation of OSG Viewer - instead of a Viewer also /being/ a View, a CompositeViewer /has/ one or more Views. That's all there is to it. | |||
So we've always got the basic scenario to fall back on where there is just a single view and things are essentially identical to a standard non-CompositeViewer setup.<ref>https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/37076818/</ref> | |||
=== Potential Issues === | === Potential Issues === | ||