I think that any change to the graphical layout of Audacity would be
towards an html thing. The desktop version of most software is
probably a dead-end in the 'new world' of cloud-based software.
On 29/09/2013 01:02, Thales wrote:
> *From:* Campbell Barton <email@example.com
> *To:* Thales <firstname.lastname@example.org
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 28, 2013 4:19 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Audacity-devel] OpenGL for Rendering Waveforms, etc?
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Thales <email@example.com
> > Hello Campbell,
> > I don't know off hand, but judging by the interfaces for packages
> like Adobe
> > Audition and Pro Tools, I'm guessing they are using either DirectX or
> > OpenGL.
> > Here are
several screenshots from both Audio Edition and Pro Tools:
> > http://www.heise.de/software/screenshots/315.jpg
> > http://fire-software.blogspot.com/2011/02/avid-pro-tools-9-windows.html
> > The rich colors, sharp details, transparent images, free form
> layouts, etc.,
> > make me think they're using OpenGL or DX! :-)
> > Thanks,
> > ...John
> "Hi John, note that I'm not speaking as part of the Audacity team (I
> only did minor patches so far),
> but I think you approach it backwards."
> Same here! :-)
> "Rather then say "theres a shiny technology - lets use it", Id approach
> from other direction.
> - Audacity is limited because "..."
> - It can be solved by "..." (improved drawing I assume?)
> - Improved/Advanced drawing can be achieved by "..."
> I'd actually be surprised if
all the applications you linked to are
> using OpenGL/DirectX,
> Its quite feasible to have smooth lines without hardware acceleration."
> Are you sure? All graphics cards should supply OpenGL and DX
> drivers, since they are the standard libraries used for graphics for
> games and other graphically intense applications. It would be very
> hard to do anything beyond the basics graphically without writing
> routines that are compatible across all cards.
> "Also don't under estimate the potential of cheap laptop hardware and
> buggy drivers to perform baddly with OpenGL,
> especially 2D functions which are sometimes done in software anyway
> (cheap cards tend to do this since games don't use them)."
> Well, games do use cheap cards. It's just that if you want the
> cutting edge games you'll need a more high
> "It depends on the scope of the task but you might end up having to
> check for different opengl hardware and implement workarounds for
> known bugs. thats in fact very common in projects using OpenGL.
> Such bugs are incredible annoying since often the developers can't
> redo them and users complain that their interface is broken."
> That's true. Bugs will always be an issue.
> "Long term - I wouldn't assume this to be a straightforward task or
> even a net gain.
> Suggest you first define the problem - then solutions can be considered,
> though unless a developer plans to pick up this project, it probably
> ends up being a lot of noise with no outcome."
> Well, this really came to me since I've been working on the pan
> envelope feature. I've done quite a
bit of work with graphics and
> OpenGL/DX, and thought that OpenGL would provide a great tool by which
> to create an effective pan envelope, and I see it working the same for
> many features. It would give you a practical advantage over
> WxWidgets in terms of flexibility of interface and quality
> renderings. Quality renderings can improve functionality, because
> being able to see things in visual space clearly adds a lot.
> However, having said that, there is no doubt this wouldn't be a
> small change and there are always down sides. I just wanted to
> throw this out there to see how people would respond.
> Thanks for the feedback, Campbell!!
> October Webinars: Code for
> Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
> Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from
> the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
> audacity-devel mailing list