I am fine with an enum that represents the style of AA requested: NONE,
MSAA, SOME_OTHER_AA, ...
It is the combining of number of samples into the enum that seems
undesirable to me. I would prefer that be a separate Integer attribute.
-- Kevin
Mario Torre wrote:
At first I was about to reply a +1 to Kevin, but then I realised:
1. This is indeed an area where people want to know the implementation
details.
2. An enum can be extended with different implementations, for example
add a non MSAA to the mix.
The drawback is that the enum may grow just for the need to add a new
property to the AA algorithm. I'm not sure how likely this is, but I
didn't see that many actual implementations to consider that an issue.
If this is the case, one may have a descriptor object passed rather
than an enum, so that external implementations may easily
extend/replace the default code.
The descriptor could be an opaque type so that the code that needs to
handle knows about it, but for users it still behaves like if it was
an enum. In fact, the defaults may even be collected in an enum again.
Cheers,
Mario
Il giorno 15/lug/2013 01:24, "Richard Bair" <richard.b...@oracle.com
<mailto:richard.b...@oracle.com>> ha scritto:
I know iOS gives at least two or three options. A single enum
seems cleaner than two properties (and yet another constructor!
Speaking of which it would be better if this were a mutable property).
Is it that you don't like that some options can't be honored?
On Jul 13, 2013, at 12:00 PM, Kevin Rushforth
<kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com <mailto:kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com>>
wrote:
> I don't really like the single enum approach. I would prefer to
keep the existing MSAA boolean, and then, if needed, add a
separate attribute for requesting the number of samples; if
desired there could be a read-only attribute that returns the
actual number of samples used. Most chipsets give limited (or no)
control over the number of samples anyway so an enum doesn't seem
like a good fit.
>
> -- Kevin
>
>
> Gerrit Grunwald wrote:
>> +1 for the enum approach...will make it easier to enhance for
future options...
>>
>> Gerrit
>> Am 12.07.2013 um 19:55 schrieb Richard Bair
<richard.b...@oracle.com <mailto:richard.b...@oracle.com>>:
>>
>>
>>> Thor recently pushed an implementation for MSAA for those
cases when the feature is supported by the card and where a Scene
(or SubScene) is created with the antiAliasing flag set to true.
MSAA is "Multi-sampled Anti Aliasing", which means that the
graphics card, when configured in this mode, will sample each
fragment multiple times. The upshot is that 3D doesn't look as jaggy.
>>>
>>> However this has an impact on performance (usually an extra
buffer copy or at the very least you will be sampling each pixel
multiple times so if you are doing something graphically intense
then that might push you over the edge where you start to see
performance degradation). Now multi-sampling can be 2x, 4x, etc.
The higher the multi-sampling value, the better the quality, and
the lower the performance.
>>>
>>> I'm also bothered but the name "antiAliasing" because there
are many forms of anti-aliasing in the world and it isn't clear
which this is. I think perhaps we should instead have an enum. The
idea is that we can add to the enum over time with greater options
for how to perform the scene antialiasing.
>>>
>>> public enum SceneAntiAliasing {
>>> DISABLED,
>>> DEFAULT,
>>> MSAA_2X,
>>> MSAA_4X
>>> }
>>>
>>> And then grow it over time to include potentially other
techniques. My thought here is that the implementation is going to
matter to folks. They're going to want to be able to make the
performance / quality tradeoff, and perhaps even the
implementation tradeoff (since different implementations may
provide somewhat different results). DISABLED turns it off,
obviously. DEFAULT allows us to pick what we think is the best
(might be different on different platforms. Desktop might go with
MSAA_16x or equivalent while iOS might be MSAA_2X). Then some
standard options.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>> Richard
>>>
