Who knows? To answer that question you have to define "easy", and carry out the analysis of the code.
You also need to decide whether you really need pluggable rendering, or whether you are willing to fork the code base a bit.... I'd be optimistic that it wouldn't be *too* hard - but the devil is in the details. You might not have to replace the entire rendering system if you could just draw with your own renderer into a "acetate layer" sitting on top of the JUMP rendering system. Some things are already drawn this way - imagery (sort of), and decorations like the scale bar. Paul Austin wrote: > A while back I heard something about a pluggable rendering system. > > I have a client who is looking as using JUMP but what they want to be > able to do is have a 3D canvas instead of 2D, with this they would be > able to have stereo imagery with 3D geometries on top of it. > > How easy would it be to swap the existing rendering system (assuming > such a renderer existed) for a Task with one that would be able to work > in 3D? > > Paul > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Jump-pilot-devel mailing list > Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel > > -- Martin Davis Senior Technical Architect Refractions Research, Inc. (250) 383-3022 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
