Talk:World Simulator: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| 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 === | ||
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] | |||
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/]) | |||
== 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
