Slick Forums

If it's not making anything worse why not? Go ahead and do it I say. As long as the end user does not need to handle anythin differently and still be able to use image.draw() or getSubImage() as expected I'm totally in for it.

_________________
Current Projects:


Projects:
- Build on top of Slick2D, Ideas, Bugs? Open an Issue ticket!

My computer is still unable to use OpenGL 2.0 (believe me, it's painfully inconvenient), but if you can keep it from breaking on earlier hardware, I think it's good.

_________________
"Artificial intelligence will never be a match for human stupidity" - "Jamos Kennedynos"

Another plus is that wouldn't happen

I'd also say go for it, davedes.
You seem to be the most experienced in this area and your explanation sounds all reasonable.

_________________
|
| |

Do we have a good way to handle FBO's/PBuffers? What I means is that we might want to give the developer an easy way to use an FBO for Post-Processing. Especially now where we have shaders (still using davedes version but you get my point).

Currently we have a FBOGraphics class which I don't really like. First of it takes an whole image... Imho a better way would be to just take the texture. Or even better have a C'Tor which just takes the width and height creating a new empty texture for us. Also I don't understand why bind and unbind are private in the current class :/

We might even want to abstract it so the dev can check on FBO or PBuffer and use what's supported?

Just some ideas I had

_________________
Current Projects:


Projects:
- Build on top of Slick2D, Ideas, Bugs? Open an Issue ticket!