Rob Savoye wrote: > strk wrote: > >> AFAIK, it won't work unless you have an accelerated card, but >> I might be wrong (software OGL?) > > > I guess it comes down to performance. Since I don't think Gnash really > takes much advantage of hardware acceleration anyway, we should > benchmark a complex movie to see if there is any difference between the > OpenGL and the AGG backends. This would include running top to see the > memory and CPU load differences. My gut feeling is that the frame rate > for most Flash movies is slower than the rendering speed, so I don't > think we'll see any real speed improvement with OpenGL over AGG. I run > without acceleration anyway, as I'm using the open source Nvidia driver. > We'd need to compare with the closed source Nvidia driver. >
Well, OpenGL is for 2D as well as 3D and is hw-driven in both cases if your hw/driver supports it. I can tell that playing elvis.swf on my SGI Octane2 (OGL implemented in the HW, no headers etc...) with AGG takes ~80% of CPU and ~16% with the OGL-backend. However as Sandro pointed out; AGG has some aspects that isn't implemented (yet!) in the OGL-backend. But since it seems to me that most of you guys prefer the AGG I think we should make it default (how democratic of me ;-)). //Markus PS. Software OGL is usually implemented by MESA and is a *real* CPU-hog... Don't go there! DS. >> Anyway, I confirm I'm for AGG being the default. > > One advantage of using AGG is we drop the dependency on GTKGLEXT and > libGL, and replace it with just AGG. Course if the version of AGG in the > distribution is 2.4 or older, then we're screwed... so maybe OpenGL is > safer till the newer release of AGG gets around. > > - rob -
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnash-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev
