Re: Advanced Rendering Interface
Philippe C.D. Robert <[email protected]> Thu, 9 Jan 2003 20:54:43 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gnu.3dkit.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 02:15 Uhr, Gerard Iglesias wrote: > Happy new year and best wishes.... Thanks, same 2u all! > On Thursday, December 26, 2002, at 01:18 PM, Philippe C.D. Robert > wrote: >>> OK you want to make a new QuickRenderman implementation, not a bad >>> idea, in fact maybe it is a real good idea and make sense on the Mac >>> platform ;) >> >> I am not sure if a pure QRM implementation would be worth it, but I >> have to look more into this... anyway, the most interesting part >> would probably be the RenderMan shader language. > > Sorry to be more precise I was thinking of implementing the Renderman > API in OpenGL, that is using real time rendering technique to > implement shaders, but that is true that it doesn't mean getting > something running in real time.... > > QRM was a simplification of the rendering process to get something > running at a correct speed on a NeX 68040 ;) QRM was very limited - shading was essentially not there. I am not sure that we need a RenderMan renderer anymore, but if we can implement a shading language/compiler which is compliant to the RenderMan Shading Language but uses an OpenGL backend, this would be almost perfect..:-) > And sure the tough part will be to implement renderman shader in > OpenGL, in fact a very interesting engineering/research problem, good > point and a subject by itself, good .... Yup ...:-) It is like reimplementing SGI OpenGL Shader, and I am not sure I am allowed to work on such a beast. >> If it is additional stuff, yes why not - esp. having more physics >> functionality would be cool! As for the current C implementation, I >> think it is quite well optimised, but then there are always ways to >> improve.. > > I was thinking about new geometrical stuff, there is also physical > stuff in it, a simple port would be possible, I don't think that the > given code is very optimised, and I will take a look at the licensing > agreement. You mean you want to integrate some existing code into the GeometryKit? What is it you want to integrate into the GeometryKit, if I may ask? -Phil -- Philippe C.D. Robert http://www.nice.ch/~phip