Difference between revisions of "Talk:World Simulator"

From SpaceElevatorWiki.com
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 3: Line 3:
 
=== Good and bad points ===
 
=== Good and bad points ===
  
* ++ It's C#
+
* +++ It's C#
 
* -- Overload of evaluating the track to be displayed (Many marshaling required).
 
* -- Overload of evaluating the track to be displayed (Many marshaling required).
 +
* - Require to write a
  
 
=== Discussion ===
 
=== Discussion ===
Line 19: Line 20:
 
=== Good and bad points ===
 
=== Good and bad points ===
  
 +
* ++ PLib's SSG renderer already written.
 
* -- Outdoor scene like quad-trees / octrees ([http://www.google.com/search?q=octree+outdoor] and [http://www.gamedev.net/reference/programming/features/quadtrees/])
 
* -- Outdoor scene like quad-trees / octrees ([http://www.google.com/search?q=octree+outdoor] and [http://www.gamedev.net/reference/programming/features/quadtrees/])
 
* -- Good scene graphs are in C++, what about the completeness of wrappers?
 
* -- Good scene graphs are in C++, what about the completeness of wrappers?
Line 25: Line 27:
 
=== Discussion ===
 
=== Discussion ===
  
Concerning this and the scene graph, I don't think we need a complex
+
If you want to understand my opinion about scene graph you can see what says this guy: [http://home.comcast.net/~tom_forsyth/blog.wiki.html#%5B%5BScene%20Graphs%20-%20just%20say%20no%5D%5D]
scene graph. In every project I made, the use of a specific scene
 
graph quickly became a limitation. Taken this into account, I prefer
 
we write a tiny 3D engine completely in C#, just containing the flat
 
list of 3D objects in the world, it's easy and probably faster: no
 
wrapper, we're free to make application-specific optimizations, etc.
 
For example we can then switch to a quad-tree (or octree) for storing
 
objects, which is really better than a scene graph in an outdoor
 
scene. ([http://www.google.com/search?q=octree+outdoor] and
 
[http://www.gamedev.net/reference/programming/features/quadtrees/])
 
  
Humm, if you want to understand my opinion about scene graph you can
+
I don't think we need a complex scene graph. In every project I made, the use of a specific scene graph quickly became a limitation. Taken this into account, I prefer we write a tiny 3D engine completely in C#, just containing the flat list of 3D objects in the world, it's easy and probably faster: no wrapper, we're free to make application-specific optimizations, etc. For example we can then switch to a quad-tree (or octree) for storing objects, which is really better than a scene graph in an outdoor scene. ([http://www.google.com/search?q=octree+outdoor] and [http://www.gamedev.net/reference/programming/features/quadtrees/])
see what says this guy: [http://home.comcast.net/~tom_forsyth/blog.wiki.html#%5B%5BScene%20Graphs%20-%20just%20say%20no%5D%5D]
 
  
 
== Toolkits ==
 
== Toolkits ==

Revision as of 16:59, 13 June 2008

Engine in C# (vs C/C++)

Good and bad points

  • +++ It's C#
  • -- Overload of evaluating the track to be displayed (Many marshaling required).
  • - Require to write a

Discussion

To start, I guess for now I'll just make some minimal improvements in C++, it's a good way to make me comfortable with the code base. Probably when enough things will start to be ported to C# we'll consider making the 3D engine working completely in C#. Although this is often a module where performance should not be sacrificed and to much "C# to C++" calls may hurt performances.

Scene-Graph (vs Custom Renderer)

Good and bad points

  • ++ PLib's SSG renderer already written.
  • -- Outdoor scene like quad-trees / octrees ([1] and [2])
  • -- Good scene graphs are in C++, what about the completeness of wrappers?
  • -- It's fun to write a 3D renderer

Discussion

If you want to understand my opinion about scene graph you can see what says this guy: [3]

I don't think we need a complex scene graph. In every project I made, the use of a specific scene graph quickly became a limitation. Taken this into account, I prefer we write a tiny 3D engine completely in C#, just containing the flat list of 3D objects in the world, it's easy and probably faster: no wrapper, we're free to make application-specific optimizations, etc. For example we can then switch to a quad-tree (or octree) for storing objects, which is really better than a scene graph in an outdoor scene. ([4] and [5])

Toolkits

  • OpenTK, an OpenGL/AL wrapper as well as a toolkit providing math functions, etc.
    • This may be a good choice to. It has less dependencies than TAO (since/however it provides less wrappers..).
  • TAO