OpenSceneGraph VS magnum

I started in 2001 with OpenSceneGraph which made extensive use of intrusive pointers. This was 10 years before C++11 note. That codebase continues to be relevant and as performing as ever.

browse github and try to contribute. I started with OpenSceneGraph

I have been using OpenSceneGraph for over 20 years. It is used in the military a lot and I myself have seen it used to simulate war scenarios with realtime data aboard of a command-and-control center of a battleship.

Does http://www.openscenegraph.org/ fit?

Speed Dreams: It is a fork of TORCS, and was born as the need to include many more functions to the latter. In Speed Dreams the menus would be completely redesigned, adding many more options and making them much more intuitive; the game acquired dynamic time, improvements in reflections, career mode, a new simulation mode and multi threading. Over time many more options were implemented, such as local multiplayer mode, Force Feedback, and of course more and better cars and tracks, a new and more powerfull graphic engine (OpenSceneGraph) among other things, making it a much more complete game than its predecessor. They recently they have presented version 2.2.3. You can also install it in AppImage and Flatpak format.

Here is an example: https://github.com/openscenegraph/OpenSceneGraph/blob/master/examples/osgsimplegl3/osgsimplegl3.cpp

openscenegraph (mainly focuses on graphics, used by openmw for example)

Is not little, is very complex open source racing simulator. There are a lot of cars, categories, tracks. The physics has a lot of work . About the graphics, the devs are working on change the graphic engine to OpenSceneGraph, that actually works, but needs much more polishing. You can see his quality on this video: https://youtu.be/4daTgcxEWRg

I love Godot for a complete game engine. For just the renderer you could consider http://www.openscenegraph.org

Magnum

If you want something that gives you more control you could use magnum.

Therefore, in terms of artist mindshare, Blender is the leading open source 3D creation program, but not the leading 3D creation program. I think Godot is already in a similar situation, and has been for a few years now. In comparison, most other open source game engines have focused on providing low-level functionality. These certainly fulfill a niche, but in my experience, most people want something that works at a higher level and comes with a built-in editor.

Magnum is worth checking out.

Since you want something lightweight, I'll assume you mean the former. If that's the case, then checkout bgfx or Magnum. Magnum does include some extra features typically found in a graphics engine.

You could try Magnum it wraps SDL and others, but you might find it maybe too low-level. It's certainly not Love2D.

C++ is similar to C in that there are multiple "styles" of use that vary from project to project. Other, usually newer languages (C#, Python, Rust, etc) tend to have a stronger sense of what idioms should be used. Whereas, for instance, some C++ projects (like some GUI libraries and game/graphics engines) will partially/entirely replace the STL (and older ones may have been around before C++ had a standard library aside from C's), or forbid the use of certain C++ features (example).

Magnum Graphics

> He has Vulkan support in here with a clearly marked file named Pipeline.cpp. The guy knows what a pipeline is...

There is a Vulkan API wrapper. However, there is no "Vk Renderer" -- no code seems to use the Vulkan parts of the code system, and the two projects seem unrelated.

> * Is this not a UBO interface?

There are ways of making a uniform buffer, however the examples don't cover them and the API doesn't adapt automatically. See how all of the setters assert if UBOs are enabled.

https://github.com/mosra/magnum/blob/cfc02599e54e02337dd56bb...

> * I don't see why you think there's limited support for multiple framebuffers...?

The code I do see is about binding/unbinding framebuffers in a stateful manner, e.g. AbstractFramebuffer::bind(), rather than supporting passes.

> None of your criticism seem well intentioned. It might behoove you to give people the benefit of the doubt and realize that you may be able to learn something from them, even if they're so clearly inferior to you.

To put it simply, I've taught enough graphics to know first-hand the kinds of misconceptions that OpenGL-styled APIs can cause, and I'm just a bit tired to see it continue. Admittedly I was a bit harsh, I don't mean any harm towards the author. There are just graphics APIs with interfaces I consider to be much better designed.