Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=“iso-8859-1”
So now that we’re with SDL 2 (as opposed to 1.2), we have better
integration with the awesome hardware accelerated APIs (OpenGL, D3D).
However, why are we still restricted to rectangles (with color-keyed
textures)?
Someone was working at adding triangles, but I don’t know if it’s
still being worked on, and there was a question as to whether it would
actually be added to SDL, or just an extension library.
We should be able to construct vertex buffer arrays / objects through SDL
by now. I’m not aware of any significant difference between OGL and D3D on
that front.
VBOs sound like extension territory to me.
As a side effect, this will be a step towards adding 3D functionality to
SDL.
3D is definitely extension territory. One of the nice things about SDL
is that it’s reasonably small, so you CAN reinvent most of the wheels
without breaking things if you see fit. And yes, I for one do consider
the ability to boldly cover the same ground that everyone else has
covered before to be a genuine benefit: it reduces the need for
"translations", chances of collisions, etc.
Alternatively, is there an SDL extension that already does that?
If there is, then what is the rationale behind leaving it as extension and
not adding it to the SDL core?
As far as the lack of triangles, I don’t know that there’s any
particularly compelling rationale, the only thing that I genuinely
know to be stopping it is the lack of a software triangle renderer. As
for the rest, SDL is APPROXIMATELY intended to be an abstraction
layer, so if it goes MEANINGFULLY beyond bare-bones then it generally
isn’t appropriate for the core library (though if you need “A” for the
sake of implementing “B” in an extension library, then either “A” or
something that will allow an extension library to implement "A"
certainly becomes much more reasonable).> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 19:33:08 +0200
From: Ivan Rubinson
To: SDL Development List
Subject: [SDL] API for non-rectangulars
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 19:50:14 +0200
From: Ivan Rubinson
To: SDL Development List
Subject: Re: [SDL] API for non-rectangulars
Message-ID:
<CAHR5Zr-s8ANUHNw3A4WB24M3YXURS5_VEmGKmo5ozvCYM5W3sQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=“iso-8859-1”
Sounds awesome!
VBOs are not 3D-specific though.
So let me get this straight: SDL rendering is crap and should be replaced
with OpenGL ASAP if possible?
Why does it have so much customization/power already then?
“Customer” request? The SDL2 renderer API isn’t intended for only toy
& learning use, but it IS only intended for lower-spec use. Basically,
utility programs & games with simple graphics demands are the intended
use case: stuff that wants cross-platform graphics, but doesn’t care
about power enough to justify an additional library dependency
(imagine an installer that should be interactive, graphical, and
capable of displaying it’s GUI even if the game won’t work, for the
sake of trouble-shooting).
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 13:55:34 -0400
From: Jonathan Dearborn
To: SDL Development List
Subject: Re: [SDL] API for non-rectangulars
Message-ID:
<CA+DSiHZJPjH8_tMPfXedif5deE3==voqC+L=nk+roJNPHJFVHg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=“iso-8859-1”
(by “OpenGL backend”, of course I meant renderers for OpenGL 3, 2, 1, and
OpenGL ES 2 and 1 
)
SDL is a multimedia library, not a replacement for OpenGL. It makes a
window and lets you put stuff in it. If you need to do more, then SDL
makes it easy for you to set up an OpenGL context. We don’t want SDL to
just be another game engine.
Amen, leave that stuff to other projects: SDL should be the type of
thing that those other projects use to get their engines running in
more places.