Quick question: CVA + VBO = doable?
Author
I don't see why not, but I just want to make sure. It's possible to use a complied vertex array with vertex buffer objects, right?
probably, but its pointless.
I've said it before, i'll say it again, forget CVA. Its an unfinished extension, its never going to make core and will just become more useless as time goes on.
I've said it before, i'll say it again, forget CVA. Its an unfinished extension, its never going to make core and will just become more useless as time goes on.
Author
Bummer. It sounds perfect for what I want it to do: quickly translate/rotate a mesh of thousands of shared vertices. Oh well, let's hope VBOs make the performance difference I'm seeking.
Thanks as always, my ever-accomodating apparition.
Thanks as always, my ever-accomodating apparition.
Technically, it would be best if NV, ATI & co removed the CVA extension from the extension string altogether. Of course, that would break some old games (or at least, make them run slower), but sometimes that's the best thing to do.
CyberSlag: CVAs are pretty much a NO-OP on modern hardware anyway, they will often default to a static VBO. So using VBOs directly is going to be much more flexible, elegant and in line with future API developments.
CyberSlag: CVAs are pretty much a NO-OP on modern hardware anyway, they will often default to a static VBO. So using VBOs directly is going to be much more flexible, elegant and in line with future API developments.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
