[visionegg] Re: GL state responsibility (warning: may contain theory)

Andrew Straw wrote:

Kevin J. MacKenzie wrote:


The only possible drawback I see here is for stereo geometry. When
rendering stereoscopic stimuli, I employ 2 projection matrices which rely on
differences in the camera position. However, the geometry here is
straightforward, and probably not difficult to change.



Should I check these changes into CVS (they are substantial enough that
I wanted to give people a period to comment first), you'd need to make
only minor modifications.  In fact, your code may work exactly the way
it is, it's just that now you'd know it's not The Right Way.

To do things properly, the idea is to move all of your camera position
and orientation information to the new "camera_matrix" parameter of
Viewport, which in turn is used as the base modelview matrix to which


aha! Then I don't think there would be any issue, as you can always employ multiple viewports, with different defined projections if needed. I think my original post is not worth the pain now......

other, stimulus-specific, transformations are applied. (The field of
view and aspect ratio would continue to be part of the "projection"
parameter of Viewport.)


Yes. So, any changes made in cvs should not drastically change the "stereo" approach for using the VisionEgg.

Cool.

Kevin

Cheers!
Andrew

======================================
The Vision Egg mailing list
Archives: http://www.freelists.org/archives/visionegg
Website: http://www.visionegg.org/mailinglist.html





======================================
The Vision Egg mailing list
Archives: http://www.freelists.org/archives/visionegg
Website: http://www.visionegg.org/mailinglist.html

Other related posts: