Le 08/02/2012 04:44, dmotd a écrit :
...
and of course i object ;)
i see it as a flexible storage object which has a basic primitive
routine attached.
that's why we do not agree ;-)
it's the same the difference than between cube and
gl_begin/gl_vertex/gl_vertex/gl_vertex/gl_vertex/gl_end.
The 1st is simpler to user, but less flexible. Most peoples use the cube
object.
here, we choose the easiest solution, not the most flexible. (less work for
most functionality).
the most flexible solution (vertex_* object) was deprecated before being part
of main.
yes precisely, that's my argument for separating, part of the reason why
you'd use a vbo is that it's stored on gpu and fast for that reason. the
vbo is designed as persistent storage, a model can be loaded once and
bound as many times as needed.
i think it's a similar argument for using soundfiler to load audio into
tables, as opposed to working directly off a disk (with readsf~ etc),
and there are obvious non-linear benefits to using tables as storage.
futher a vbo can be used to store more than one model, we can
selectively edit only part of the buffer with a BufferSubData, or
selectively display part of a buffer with a different offset/size to
DrawArrays.
it's possible to add this functionality to the curent gemvertexobject.
for example, we may just want to edit the position of a single vertex
(or color/texcoord/etc), instead of reloading the entire model from
client to the buffer, we can edit the vbo in vram at a specified offset
for a size of one.
this feature can also be added.
and multiple draw
routines could bind to the same buffer.
as any other primitive, you can connectmultiple gemhead to a single
gemvertexbuffer.
that's true, but i'm not sure it's a widely used feature, my sense is
that people will create multiple gemvertexbuffer instead.
because most people don't need optimisation.
using pd/Gem is because it's fast to develop, even if execution is slower than
a C code.
i think this should certainly be integrated into the core gem, and while
the name makes sense for an outside external simply vertexbuffer or
vtx_buffer would be more appropriate?
i'll happily put these thoughts into code, but would like some feedback
before i do.
i don't really see a strong interest splinting gemvertexbuffer in 2 different
objects, but if you do so, and if you are ready to code it, then i have no
objection, as long as you can provide a compatible abstraction that replace the
current gemvertexbuffer object.
of course, i wouldn't want to break your current functionality.
thanks for taking the time to reply.
thanks for taking time to improve Gem.
cheers
Cyrille
what about Antoine and Iohannes?
...
_______________________________________________
GEM-dev mailing list
GEM-dev@iem.at
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev
_______________________________________________
GEM-dev mailing list
GEM-dev@iem.at
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev
