Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


#Actualsektion31

Posted 08 November 2012 - 06:02 AM


without illumination (meaning everything just is illuminated), shading and physics could be a simple enough

It is a natural behaviour, that people tend to underestimate the amount of work necessary if they do not have experiences and knowledge in the target area. So, an engine is really a vague term. Do you want to add an existing phyiscs engine or build up your own. The latter is a show stopper.

What I meant was that writing a renderer without illumination, without physics and without shading. How long would it take in your eyes for someone like me to finish such a very basic renderer? My time frame is difficult to say. It sounds weird but I will be working on a cruse ship till mid april, starting from december. I want to spend my spare working on my thesis, which I will not start officially before I come back. I know for a fact, that I will have some free time to do so. I talked to my professor about this yesterday and he is fine with it. He is also very liberal on choosing the topic, although he would like to see me more in the 2D world working on face recognition for example.


As much as I hate to write this, your goal is not to do what you want. Is to reach your target.

Hopefully I can make my target what I want it to be. Right now I couldn't define one.

Yesterday I figured out, that my Intel GM965 graphics card, that I wanted to take on the cruse does only support openGL 2.0 under Windows and openGL 2.1 under Linux. Do you think this would limit my learning on recent openGL programming technology? The API did change a lot as I hear and I do remember the the stories about openGL 3.1 beeing the real 3.0. If so I am thinking on buying a new (but used) laptop for me. something like this i guess. The other option would be to program for my android phone.
How do you stand on openGL ES? Does it differ a lot from openGL, say 3.3 or is it more of a stripped down version? Does it make sense to learn openGL first

#3sektion31

Posted 08 November 2012 - 06:02 AM


without illumination (meaning everything just is illuminated), shading and physics could be a simple enough

It is a natural behaviour, that people tend to underestimate the amount of work necessary if they do not have experiences and knowledge in the target area. So, an engine is really a vague term. Do you want to add an existing phyiscs engine or build up your own. The latter is a show stopper.

What I meant was that writing a renderer without illumination, without physics and without shading. How long would it take in your eyes for someone like me to finish such a very basic renderer? My time frame is difficult to say. It sounds weird but I will be working on a cruse ship till mid april, starting from december. I want to spend my spare working on my thesis, which I will not start officially before I come back. I know for a fact, that I will have some free time to do so. I talked to my professor about this yesterday and he is fine with it. He is also very liberal on choosing the topic, although he would like to see me more in the 2D world working on face recognition for example.


As much as I hate to write this, your goal is not to do what you want. Is to reach your target.

Hopefully I can make my target what I want it to be. Right now I couldn't define one.

Yesterday I figured out, that my Intel GM965 graphics card, that I wanted to take on the cruse does only support openGL 2.0 under Windows and openGL 2.1 under Linux. Do you think this would limit my learning on recent openGL programming technology? The API did change a lot as I hear and I do remember the the stories about openGL 3.1 beeing the real 3.0. If so I am thinking on buying a new (but used) laptop for me. something like this i guess. The other option would be to program for my android phone.
How do you stand on openGL ES? Does it differ a lot from openGL, say 3.3 or is it more of a stripped down version? Does it make sense to learn openGL first

#2sektion31

Posted 08 November 2012 - 06:00 AM


without illumination (meaning everything just is illuminated), shading and physics could be a simple enough

It is a natural behaviour, that people tend to underestimate the amount of work necessary if they do not have experiences and knowledge in the target area. So, an engine is really a vague term. Do you want to add an existing phyiscs engine or build up your own. The latter is a show stopper.

What I meant was that writing a renderer without illumination, without physics and without shading. How long would it take in your eyes for someone like me to finish such a very basic renderer? My time frame is difficult to say. It sounds weird but I will be working on a cruse ship till mid april, starting from december. I want to spend my spare working on my thesis, which I will not start officially before I come back. I know for a fact, that I will have some free time to do so. I talked to my professor about this yesterday and he is fine with it. He is also very liberal on choosing the topic, although he would like to see me more in the 2D world working on face recognition for example.


As much as I hate to write this, your goal is not to do what you want. Is to reach your target.

Hopefully I can make my target what I want it to be. Right now I couldn't define one.

Yesterday I figured out, that my Intel GM965 graphics card, that I wanted to take on the cruse does only support openGL 2.0 under Windows and openGL 2.1 under Linux. Do you think this would limit my learning on recent openGL programming technology? The API did change a lot as I hear and I do remember the the stories about openGL 3.1 beeing the real 3.0. If so I am thinking on buying a new (but used) laptop for me. something like this i guess. The other option would be to
How do you stand on openGL ES? Does it differ a lot from openGL, say 3.3 or is it more of a stripped down version? Does it make sense to learn openGL first

#1sektion31

Posted 08 November 2012 - 05:58 AM


without illumination (meaning everything just is illuminated), shading and physics could be a simple enough

It is a natural behaviour, that people tend to underestimate the amount of work necessary if they do not have experiences and knowledge in the target area. So, an engine is really a vague term. Do you want to add an existing phyiscs engine or build up your own. The latter is a show stopper.

What I meant was that writing a renderer without illumination, without physics and without shading. How long would it take in your eyes for someone like me to finish such a very basic renderer? My time frame is difficult to say. It sounds weird but I will be working on a cruse ship till mid april, starting from december. I want to spend my spare working on my thesis, which I will not start officially before I come back. I know for a fact, that I will have some free time to do so. I talked to my professor about this yesterday and he is fine with it. He is also very liberal on choosing the topic, although he would like to see me more in the 2D world working on face recognition for example.


As much as I hate to write this, your goal is not to do what you want. Is to reach your target.

Hopefully I can make my target what I want it to be.

Yesterday I figured out, that my Intel GM965 graphics card, that I wanted to take on the cruse does only support openGL 2.0 under Windows and openGL 2.1 under Linux. Do you think this would limit my learning on recent openGL programming technology? The API did change a lot as I hear and I do remember the the stories about openGL 3.1 beeing the real 3.0. If so I am thinking on buying a new (but used) laptop for me. something like this i guess. The other option would be to
How do you stand on openGL ES? Does it differ a lot from openGL, say 3.3 or is it more of a stripped down version? Does it make sense to learn openGL first

PARTNERS