Re: [AD] Allegro and OpenGL

[Thomas Fjellstrom <tfjellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On December 15, 2003 11:27 am, Jason Winnebeck wrote:
> I think Allegro 5 should be redesigned to be able to use DirectDraw or
> OpenGL (or Direct3D if someone wanted to program it).  I don't use
> Allegro anymore because it's just not modern enough.  I would use OpenGL
> or Direct3D to do 2D graphics now.

Allegro 5 and Allegro 4 support using either OGL, or DDraw, or D3d if you 
prefer. Someone just needs to write the code for the drivers, Allegro GL its 
self is already written and over rides many of the default allegro 2d 
operations.

> I'm not sure it should be added to Allegro 4, and definitely not if no
> new API support is added.  It works well as an add-on.  I think Allegro
> 5 should be designed such that the graphics are done similar to the old
> Allegro versions, but in such a way that is very condusive to hardware
> acceleration.  Allegro should be almost as easy to use, but should use
> hardware acceleration under the hood.  Direct access should be
> discouraged (or allowed only with the use of the old drivers).  So for
> example when you make bitmaps it really makes textures, and when you
> blit you really draw a quad, and when you rotate etc etc.  And we could
> introduce a 2D transformation system similar to that of OpenGL (I
> believe GDI+ has it too) where you have transformation matrices.  So
> instead of rotate_sprite, you would call al_rotate then blit.  Instead
> of stretch_blit, you would call al_Scale then blit.  For the new drivers
> (OpenGL), it would really draw triangles and textures, for the old
> drivers, it would call the old-style rotate_sprite and such.
>
> For most of the operations in Allegro, rotation, scaling, transparency,
> these are all supported very well in OpenGL/Direct3D.
>
> That might be a little too hardcore though.  It might pull Allegro away
> from what makes Allegro have its own use (in other words, if we make it
> integrated, there may be no reason to use Allegro over OpenGL, or it
> might be so limited as to be useless).

The only problem with this, is noones done any real work on Allegro 5 in ages. 
Bob has barely had time to clean up AllegroGL. And my best guess is Peter is 
just as busy.

> Jason Winnebeck (Gillius)
>
> Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Now to the question that has been taboo for the past years: should we
> > merge AllegroGL in Allegro 4.2?


-- 
Thomas Fjellstrom
tfjellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx
http://strangesoft.net