4
\$\begingroup\$

Before posting the question, I'd like to know if it fits to be a community wiki question in the GD.SE main. Clearly it would be way too broad to be a normal question. My question would be "What are the most common pitfalls with buffer objects in OpenGL?" The question is about people's experiences with the buffer objects, what they encountered when implementing their renderers and how did they solve the problems if they did? The question would include all the buffer objects that the OpenGL wiki has listed as such.

I think it would fit as a community wiki, because it does not have a single answer, and the multiple answers would not outdate quickly. If it is not, should it then be splitted up, asking "What are the common optimization techniques when using X buffer objects?" questions? Just like this question is. EDIT: And right after me posting this the example was put on hold as too broad. Just my luck I guess.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ That linked question has a great answer by concept3d, but it's a great answer to a totally different (broader, inappropriate) question. \$\endgroup\$ – Josh Nov 26 '13 at 16:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ What question does it answer then? In my opinion it does answer the question. Is the answer too broad then? That it might be. How about editing it to be more spesific? \$\endgroup\$ – Lasse Nov 26 '13 at 16:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ It answers the question in the general sense that it covers generic optimizations applicable to lots of domains, without specifically calling out details pertaining to the question (which is hard because the question is too broad). I wouldn't edit it because the question itself is poor, and I don't see the need to remove information (that people presumably voting him up for) or massively re-write the response; that feels like a disservice to the poster. \$\endgroup\$ – Josh Nov 26 '13 at 16:33
7
\$\begingroup\$

In this case, I think you'd just be relying on the community wiki status to serve as a crutch for a poorly-defined question. I don't think that's an appropriate use of community wiki, and most importantly I don't think it would set a good precedent for such questions in the future.

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

In addition to what Josh said...

In the old days I would have been inclined to VTC "what are the common pitfalls" as "not a real question". Several alternatives suggest themselves: "how to avoid common pitfalls" would improve it, "how to avoid this specific common pitfall" is even better, but by then we're going away from what seems to be the intent of your suggestion.

Related to this, it's just far too broad to generate useful answers: "OpenGL" on it's own is a huge topic with huge variation between different GL_VERSIONs. Even the buffer object APIs can be completely different in GL1.5 code versus GL4.4 code. With compatibility contexts you can say "this pitfall can be avoided by just not using buffer objects", with core contexts you can't. Any concievable answer is going to be of use to only a subset of potentially interested people.

Despite all of this I gave your question a +1 because I believe that it is a topic for which useful questions with useful answers can and do exist. The problem is that a single, broad, all-encompassing question is just not the right thing here. Plenty of questions about OpenGL buffer objects already exist on the site, and can be found via the search facility, and people should be encouraged to use that to see if the pitfall they're encountering is one for which a solution may already exist.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .