Is it ok to port Xith3D to other languages

Engines, Libraries and Tools Xith3D Forums
#1

I’m thinking about making a Xith3D port to C++ :slight_smile:
Tell what you think.

#2

hm, maybe unnecessary? 8)

#3

Very probably it’s unethical… :wink:

What is unethical for sure is to use meaningless subjects, like…:

  • §$%&/()=
  • How about
  • I’ve got a problem
    etc.

Better solutions are to put the most important point into the subect title:

  • How about porting Xith to C++ ?
  • I’ve got a problem with printf

It’s probably related to the 90/10 law of performance optimizing… :wink:

This is just intended constructively. Since you write such nice demos (thanks for them!) and are a real JavaCoolDude I think I can say this, isn’t it, Dude? :slight_smile:
(Do you like the Dude in The Big Lebowski btw? It’s not been my favourite movie but the Coen bros are usually brillant.)

#4

/me ‘s feelings are hurt
:sad panda: :’(
Well you’ve got a point man, from now on I should pick up better titles for my threads :stuck_out_tongue:

#5

[quote]I’m thinking about making a Xith3D port to C++ :slight_smile:
[/quote]
Why?

#6

Because of the overhead that’s due to native functions calls.
A perfect example is the cel-shading demo that I ported to Xith3D, which was running at over 1000 fps when based on Pascal or C++, and that now runs at around 600 fps only.
I could use a vertex shader program to overcome this handicap, but most people don’t have a DX 8.0 graphic card.
Heck even Yuri’s main development machine runs on the Geforce 4 Mx which lacks pixel and vertex shaders

#7

But theres no need to port. If you need a C++ scenegraph - hey, there are MANY out there! And also good an mature ones!

#8

[quote]Heck even Yuri’s main development machine runs on the Geforce 4 Mx which lacks pixel and vertex shaders
[/quote]
Well, here at JProof I have full range of machines with different cards, so this is not a problem :slight_smile:

[quote]Because of the overhead that’s due to native functions calls.
A perfect example is the cel-shading demo that I ported to Xith3D, which was running at over 1000 fps when based on Pascal or C++, and that now runs at around 600 fps only.
[/quote]
Are you sure that this is because of native calls?

Anyway, my idea is that this is much better to spend time making Java version of Xith3D running 1000fps (and faster) and becoming really competitive with C++ engines, than re-inventing just one more C++ engine…

I personally believe that these days Java and C++ have at least similar performance, and the rest is just matter of proper code engineering.

If this is a problem with native calls, Xith3D still have A LOT of room for optimizations in this area.

Yuri

#9

The overhead due to native function calls should not be as much as you think, maybe 2%. If you know any benchmarks, which prove the opposite, please show them. It’s propably the scenegraph structure, which costs you some fps.

Besides this, you can really use one of the stable scenegraph C++ APIs already existing or use plain OpenGL, if you don’t need the scenegraph.

Is this thread a joke? :slight_smile:

#10

Please delete this thread
Spamming fest anyone ::slight_smile: