On Wednesday 02 February 2005 15:51, Rodolphe Ortalo wrote: > On Wednesday 02 February 2005 06:23, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > It seems to me that only the ring buffer is needed for commands and > > vertices, and indirect is only needed to transfer textures. I can > > see why you'd also want to support indirect commands and vertices > > but that still looks like an expendable goody. > > I have exactly the opposite opinion and would rather keep indirect > alone than direct. > Do you have the time to explain why you think indirect is not needed > for commands?
Please see my geometry throughput estimate in a different thread, which is based on just what I see as the simplest workable arrangement. Indirect commands have to be seen as a goody, and a bunch of potential complexities have to be considered. For example, you can't tell just from the ring buffer pointers when a good time to refill the ring buffer might be, and it's tempting to elaborate the interrupt scheme to compensate for this, so complexity breeds complexity. Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
