Re: [Bf-committers] Proposal: Up blender requirements to OpenGL 2.1
I want to give my opinion on this as well, since I also sometimes run absurdly old hardware. I am sometimes stuck on an old laptop, a Panasonic Toughbook CF-50 from ~2000. Pentium M 1.7 GHz single-core processor, upgraded to have 1 GB of ram, ATI 9600 GPU with a whopping 64 MB of vram. On that note, when I ran Windows, I had a terrible time running Blender for more than 10 minutes at a time and with any more than about 10k polys. It would eventually start blanking out regions of inactive UI until I manually reactivated and forced a redraw of the region, which would then get wiped out when I move to another region (ie 3d view from properties). I have a little more luck with Fedora 20 with XFCE, although it's still unusable for anything beyond simple modeling. I think it's pretty safe to say that 14-year-old hardware simply cannot keep up with realistic needs of a 3D artist, whether for production or for just playing around. I would say it's safe to upgrade to OGL 2.1+ and simply ignore anything older. I would really like to make the devs' lives much easier by abandoning such archaic bricks as this. On 01/21/2015 11:42 AM, Mike Erwin wrote: > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:23 AM, brita wrote: > >> Upgrading the minimum to 2.1 does not mean that Blender does not use higher >> OpenGL features. >> It can always query for the ogl version and use the available features, >> resulting, for example, in more performance. >> There is no need of a separate build. >> > Should we strictly use extensions for anything newer? That would have > almost the same effect as using a higher version while making it more clear > what we support. > > The question is if versions older than 2.1 can be dropped in order for >> developers not having to loose their time coding fallback methods for >> (very!) older versions. >> > Yes yes yes! Or not forget/neglect to code a fallback for something I > *assume* is available on a random user's system. Check for 2.1+ at startup > and so many assumptions are verified. The much smaller number of useful GL > extensions is easier to remember to check. > > Mike Erwin > musician, naturalist, pixel pusher, hacker extraordinaire > ___ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Proposal: Up blender requirements to OpenGL 2.1
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:23 AM, brita wrote: > Upgrading the minimum to 2.1 does not mean that Blender does not use higher > OpenGL features. > It can always query for the ogl version and use the available features, > resulting, for example, in more performance. > There is no need of a separate build. > Should we strictly use extensions for anything newer? That would have almost the same effect as using a higher version while making it more clear what we support. The question is if versions older than 2.1 can be dropped in order for > developers not having to loose their time coding fallback methods for > (very!) older versions. > Yes yes yes! Or not forget/neglect to code a fallback for something I *assume* is available on a random user's system. Check for 2.1+ at startup and so many assumptions are verified. The much smaller number of useful GL extensions is easier to remember to check. Mike Erwin musician, naturalist, pixel pusher, hacker extraordinaire ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
[Bf-committers] Multiview branch, status update
Hi, As of today, Multi-View is mostly working as supposed. It should go to master as soon as it gets the 'go' from other developers. Meanwhile testers are once again welcome. Fresh builds: Linux x86_ 64: http://goo.gl/Tq3uCg OSX x86_64: http://goo.gl/R7DDia Win 64: http://goo.gl/GH6PNj The patch is here: https://developer.blender.org/D914 but the work can be built directly from the 'multiview' branch. I know some artists are already using it for real production work. This is really important, and I'm counting on you to report bugs (you can do it directly to my email or in the patch page). Main missing todos: * internal code changes to address missing review suggestions * usability design for sequencer/compositor to quickly edit one view at a time * best communicate to the user the stereo fullscreen modes * usability design: we may need to add a 'Single View' option for Image/Movie strips Anyways, there are other small ones, but those are to illustrate the current state. Apart from some of the 'internal code changes to address missing review suggestions', the other items can be done after the code land in master as well. Thanks, Dalai -- blendernetwork.org/dalai-felinto www.dalaifelinto.com ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Proposal: Up blender requirements to OpenGL 2.1
Upgrading the minimum to 2.1 does not mean that Blender does not use higher OpenGL features. It can always query for the ogl version and use the available features, resulting, for example, in more performance. There is no need of a separate build. The question is if versions older than 2.1 can be dropped in order for developers not having to loose their time coding fallback methods for (very!) older versions. Or.. if there is a valid reason for a considerable number of people to use <2.1, to need to keep using it, and not being able to upgrade, and to need the latest Blender. which seems far fetched Another question is if with this bump Blender can move out of the fixed function pipeline. Psy-fy ? ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
