siguctua at gmail.com
Sat Feb 2 12:02:56 UTC 2008
On 02/02/2008, Michael van der Gulik <mikevdg at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2008 2:03 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why keeping 2D and 3D apart? What i like in Opengl, that it can handle
> > both 2D/3D drawing primitives, so there is no need in using another
> > library to make your content 3D aware.
> Because 2-D widgets are composed of lines and pixels placed on a 2-D canvas.
> A button is a 2-D rectangle with a border and some black text.
> 3-D widgets on the other hand might be rendered... well... in 3-D. For
> example, you could make a button that is a very nice curved 3-D object that
> casts a slight shadow on the area of the window just below it, with actual
> 3-D embossed text, and has just enough subtle specular reflection added to
> it that you could swear you could see your own face in it. This is the sort
> of CPU-wasting stuff that would make Steve Jobs want to lick his screen.
> 2-D widgets and 3-D widgets in this example would need different
Yes, this would require issuing different commands to canvas, but not
require to have separate rendering pipelines.
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
More information about the Squeak-dev