FlightGear and OpenGL Core Profile: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
→‎Canvas.Path (OpenVG): https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/37605458/
m (→‎Canvas.Path (OpenVG): https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/37605458/)
Line 276: Line 276:
Will likely need to replace shiva vg with an OpenGL 2.0 based implementation like nanovg <ref>https://github.com/memononen/nanovg</ref>.
Will likely need to replace shiva vg with an OpenGL 2.0 based implementation like nanovg <ref>https://github.com/memononen/nanovg</ref>.


So far however everything points at canvas, and looking at
As part of the Core profile migration, we need to replace ShivaVG (which is the functional guts of Path.cxx) with a shader based implementation, ideally NanoVG, although Scott has indicated this might not be as easy as originally hoped. <ref>https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/37605458/</ref>
canvas code, it seems that there's a lot of stuff going on in update and
 
cull callbacks that looks to me like it shouldn't. I don't really
So far however everything points at canvas, and looking at canvas code, it seems that there's a lot of stuff going on in update and
understand the architecture well enough to tell for sure though, or to
cull callbacks that looks to me like it shouldn't. I don't really understand the architecture well enough to tell for sure though, or to
figure out how to fix it.<ref>https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/37605328/</ref>
figure out how to fix it.<ref>https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/37605328/</ref>


Navigation menu