| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
I hate Linux Graphics (Linux Hater's Blog)I hate Linux Graphics (Linux Hater's Blog)Posted Jul 2, 2008 0:52 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341)In reply to: I hate Linux Graphics (Linux Hater's Blog) by tialaramex Parent article: I hate Linux Graphics (Linux Hater's Blog)
Hmm.. The O2 demo software included things like video mapped onto rotating cubes...
(Log in to post comments)
I hate Linux Graphics (Linux Hater's Blog) Posted Jul 2, 2008 3:17 UTC (Wed) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] I think the parent poster was referring to rendering other application's pixels as textures onto a 3D model, as you might see when running a media player and using Compiz's cube desktop switcher. Is that what the O2 demo was doing, or was it just a single application using frames of a video as textures?
I hate Linux Graphics (Linux Hater's Blog) Posted Jul 6, 2008 18:13 UTC (Sun) by kbob (guest, #1770) [Link] Each of the O2 demos was a single process, as I recall. Some of them were groups of earlier demos glommed together, e.g., onto different cube faces, but they were recompiled into a single executable. They just demonstrated what the hardware could do. That's why they were called demos.
1990s SGI Posted Jul 6, 2008 18:08 UTC (Sun) by kbob (guest, #1770) [Link] Yes, the O2 had a unified memory model. 2D, 3D, the video decompressor, and video inputs all wrote to pbuffers, pbuffers were used as texture inputs, and one pbuffer was fed to each video output DAC. It allowed things to be plumbed any which way. SGI's higher end graphics systems at the time, Impact and Reality Engine 2, were optimized to render directly to the screen, but could also render to pbuffers. They also didn't have the video inputs by default. Yes, I worked on O2, though not on the graphics subsystems.
|
|
||||||||||||