3 ms·
I think that's just an artifact of the fact that not nearly as much effort has been expended on 2D graphics as 3D. In fact, I've become convinced through my Pat
by pcwalton 8y ago
I think that's just an artifact of the fact that not nearly as much effort has been expended on 2D graphics as 3D. In fact, I've become convinced through my Pathfinder work that the GPU is just as good as the CPU for 2D vector graphics. It's just that our 2D rendering stacks are way behind.
(As an aside, I think this state of affairs is unfortunate, given how much money there is in mobile apps and browsers and the like. The vast majority of the research goes to 3D, and 3D is flashier and prettier work in a sense, but the amount of time we spend reading text on a screen generally dwarfs the amount of time people spend consuming 3D CG entertainment...)
- weberc2 8y agoIf the GPU is only "just as good" why bother with GPU rendering at all? Free up the CPU for other work?
- adanto6840 8y agoYes, definitely. We did that in SimAirport, basically rendering everything as if it was full 3D and use none of the engine-provided "2D features" (which largely amounts to 'more work on the CPU'). Finding fun mechanics that add to CPU load is awfully easy. ;)
- pcwalton 8y agoIt's faster than the CPU if done properly.
- jayd16 8y agoWhat 2d functionality do you think is being left on the table? The way I see it, most 3d raster graphic techniques boil down to baking data in a way that's easy to pipeline. It doesn't really have anything to do with 3d vs 2d. Verts and textures are the way they are because its easy to linearly interpolate them in parallel. Do you mean vector vs raster?