Re: [Fenfire-dev] Yet another libvob API: LWJGL

[Matti Katila]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Tuukka Hastrup wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Matti Katila wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Tuukka Hastrup wrote:
> > Ok what we can do with this information? Let's say that we use lobs to
>
> So you would say this is acceptable and the test used a comparable amount
> of jni calls per frame to what fenfire would?

No, I was out of nuts when calculating. The result just shows that more
jni calls or more things to render make it slower... I can not be sure
which one. Anyway there was like 10'000 jni calls per frame with 50 gears.


> > > Right, was one of the requirements to have as few JNI calls per frame as
> > > possible?
> >
> > Then we come back to the start point, that's the system we have now.
> > There still are the same issues.
>
> Not really, there was this idea of moving the opengl data over in one jni
> call, independent of using native libvob?

Ah, I see. You mean a new intermediate language from Java to native.
When new draw command is executed, all previous GL calls are pushed trough
int array or such. It might work.


> > > And was this a reason why none of the wrappers would do, as
> > > they concentrate on games?
> > Well, we haven't ever been there. When architecture is constructed it has
> > needs to fulfill, i.e., requirements. I think speed was one of those
> > requirements and Tuomas though that one jni call per frame would do
> > that. We don't know whether a more than one jni call per
> > frame is acceptable. This mode, where you have a freedom to draw anything
> > on frame, is called as intermediate mode in game scenes.
>
> I thought he'd found out more jni calls wouldn't be acceptable, but who
> knows.  Requirements have changed too.

We may ask from Tuomas then we can be sure.

> (What mode now exactly is intermediate mode? What are the alternatives?)

You need to google it. I'm not a specialist :-)


   -Matti