Hi all !
I'm back online again (though struggling with life ;-))
guenter geiger wrote:
High level/low level I think what is really desirable is to have low-level and high level functionality together... somewhat like GL and GLU. I don't think you can do without the low-level if you want flexibility, but straightforward support for things like parameterized models would be great...
Yes, I think there should be support for both too, and what I heard is that Johannes is already experimenting with a low level API.
well yes, i started making Gem a (more or less) complete openGL-wrapper (this gives about 400 new objects,... ah it's much code to do and although i have automatized a lot of it, i still have to go through everything again (my scripts used to be not that good...))
The biggest issues I've found with GEM are in data management and render flow control which both get quite awkward... these are partly problems that also occur in PD... generalized matrix formulations of things would be really good. (hello, Gridflow!)
Is a GEM redesign in the works? I'd be interested to hear more about this and contribute what I can...
Yes, I really think so. What Johannes told me is that he is trying to redesign the render flow control, using pd messages instead of the hardwire DAG list. I think that input on these issues is very important in the current stage, when things can still be changed.
Johannes, do you have something of that in CVS already ?
yes, the CVS-version does the render-chain via the pd-message system. it seems to work fine (erich has reported a problem there, but i haven't found out, whether the problem was really related to the render-chain or something different)
i see daniel's suggestion of making Gem a second thread, but this would have been easier with the hardwired DAG
mfg.dsa.r IOhannes