This allows implementing of double buffer algorithms, where the next scene is drawn while the previous scene is exhibited.Ī renderbuffer can also be used to store depth and stencil information that is used just for a single draw procedure. It can be attached to a framebuffer as the destination of pixels being drawn, then quickly copied to the viewport or another framebuffer. It's optimized for pixel transfer operations. The renderbuffer is just like a texture, but stores pixels using an internal format. Textures can be attached to a shader program and used as samplers. This allows, for instance, multi-pass drawing or drawing a scene inside another scene. Each pixel in a texture typically contains color components and an alpha value (a pixel in the texture can be translated from and into an RGBA quad with 4 floats).Īfter drawing to the framebuffer that contains a texture attached, it's possible to read pixels from the texture to use in another draw operation. This is an actual buffer and can be attached to a framebuffer as the destination of pixels being drawn. Each field (each attachment in OpenGL terms) can be a pointer to a render buffer, texture, depth buffer, etc. Understand the framebuffer as a C struct with many fields.
It's a small object that holds one or more attachments, which are themselves the actual buffers.
It's an abstraction for an object that defines parameters for a draw operation. Also, If you are rendering the scene with, say, a deferred renderer in one case, and a forward renderer in the other, then it's again not the right comparison, even if you got the same image.A framebuffer is not actually a buffer. If you are rendering a scene without postprocessing effects in one case, and with postprocessing effects on the other, then it's not the right comparison. To compare things like that you need at least to make sure that the resulting images are the same for both cases. I can at least see a more realistic lighting with reflections, as well as smoother looking walls, in the ES 3.1 screenshot. It's not the same in OpenGL ES 3.1 and 2.0. It's like saying that a Ferrari will not perform as well as a bicycle because you can ride 10 meters in a bicycle in 10 seconds, but can't drive 100 kilometers in a Ferrari in the same amount of time. Vulkan still will not perform as well as the lower graphics capable OpenGL ES 2.0, as Vulkan displays a lot more on screen and the scenes it can render are a lot more complex
To me it seems that the author of that article is just dumb.
0 kommentar(er)
