Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Qt3D 2.0 Is A Rewrite Of Qt's 3D Support

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,383

    Default Qt3D 2.0 Is A Rewrite Of Qt's 3D Support

    Phoronix: Qt3D 2.0 Is A Rewrite Of Qt's 3D Support

    Two years ago the Qt3D module was showing lost of promise for 3D support within the popular, cross-platform toolkit. However, just before the Qt 5.0 release, Nokia shutdown their Qt Brisbane office that among other Qt modules was responsible for the work on Qt3D. Nokia's late actions with Qt prior to selling it off to Digia was a a big blow and led to Qt3D being demoted. Fortunately, Qt3D 2.0 is coming along as a maintained, rewritten version of the 3D support for Qt...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTcwMTc

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ghent
    Posts
    219

    Default

    Sorry for my ignorance, but I recently read about Ogre-Qt bindings. Would those be useful in this context?

    http://www.ogre3d.org/tikiwiki/QtOgre

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,269

    Default

    A rewrite of the NIH that has no place in a gui toolkit in the first place. Yay.

    A 3d engine has no place there, we have quite enough 3d engines (and bloat in Qt) already. And it seems there were Ogre bindings based on the above post, which seems like a slightly more sensible thing than the NIH. But guess which took a lot of work, and is taking space in Qt?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    A rewrite of the NIH that has no place in a gui toolkit in the first place. Yay.

    A 3d engine has no place there, we have quite enough 3d engines (and bloat in Qt) already. And it seems there were Ogre bindings based on the above post, which seems like a slightly more sensible thing than the NIH. But guess which took a lot of work, and is taking space in Qt?
    I thought QML handles the effects in Qt becuase "it passes the effects staright to the gpu for processing"... or something like that. Is something wrong with this approach then? This confuses me, can someone explain?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    A rewrite of the NIH that has no place in a gui toolkit in the first place. Yay.

    A 3d engine has no place there, we have quite enough 3d engines (and bloat in Qt) already. And it seems there were Ogre bindings based on the above post, which seems like a slightly more sensible thing than the NIH. But guess which took a lot of work, and is taking space in Qt?
    It does not bloat Qt, because Qt is modular. If you don't want that part, don't take it, and it wont bloat any application. A 3D engine can be very useful sometime, example you want to show a simple 3D model inside your Qt application, it's not a problem anymore.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    I thought QML handles the effects in Qt becuase "it passes the effects staright to the gpu for processing"... or something like that. Is something wrong with this approach then? This confuses me, can someone explain?
    QML passes all the effect straight to the GPU and it works quite well, but it doesn't mean QML supports 3D in it's API

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gufide View Post
    QML passes all the effect straight to the GPU and it works quite well, but it doesn't mean QML supports 3D in it's API
    Thanks for clarifying.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    A rewrite of the NIH that has no place in a gui toolkit in the first place. Yay.
    Luckily, Qt isn't a GUI toolkit so it has a place after all.

    Qt already has libraries for networking, audio, SQL databases and XML files, a script engine and a Webkit module. I'm using it in my hobby project, which doesn't even have a GUI yet.
    There are plenty of other non-GUI Qt applications - wkhtmltopdf even finds a use for QtWebkit without a GUI!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    573

    Default

    QML uses an openGL context for its rendering. Which means you can take that context and reuse it yourself, or you could use multiple contexts.

    I see a lot of potential in using QML as a UI engine for a 3d game underneath. It would probably not use Qt3d, but the QML parts could use it to render in game models in windows and such. The presence of Javascript and Python bindings translates very well into a game scripting language too, so you could have JS UI + JS AI, or PyQt all over.

    The other plus is a simplified 3d model. Give it a model, give it coords, run it through animations. Maybe add in some context level tweakables for graphics settings like tessellation, AA, shadows, etc. You get a very modular 3d engine that you could either do simple games in easily or build a more complicated engine on top of.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,086

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FLHerne View Post
    Luckily, Qt isn't a GUI toolkit so it has a place after all.

    Qt already has libraries for networking, audio, SQL databases and XML files, a script engine and a Webkit module. I'm using it in my hobby project, which doesn't even have a GUI yet.
    There are plenty of other non-GUI Qt applications - wkhtmltopdf even finds a use for QtWebkit without a GUI!
    exactly, it's an Application Framework and can basically be put at the same scope as the .NET BCL and it's Addons. You can just use the GUI parts if you really really want to but that just leaves you with QWidgets and QML (Ironically equivalent to WinForms and WPF).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •