I posted only to you by a mistake -- can I reply to the list?
···
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Jonathan Taylor <jonathan.taylor@...247...> wrote:
I think that it would be a little bit more complicated than that. I
believe that the current backends act as a canvas that you paint onto.
I do not think an OpenGL "canvas" would give us a big speed
improvement. In order to get the speed improvement, the "canvas"
would have to be 3D and the M3D code would paint into this 3D space
and let OpenGL (and your video card) worry about rendering it. I
think that it would be hard to make what came out of this process look
like what we have now. Perhaps it would be possible using
orthographic projection.
Again, for simplicity, I am interested to see how much mileage we can
get out of our current implementation, perhaps by rewriting a few of
the algebraic routines in cython.
Ok, I think I understand now and your approach seems reasonable to me.
I can use mayavi if I need some fast and fancy stuff and one can use
mpl if one just wants some regular 3d stuff.
So what do you think we should do with our 3d plots in sympy? It's too
simple for mayavi, too complex for mpl,... Well. 
Ondrje
I posted only to you by a mistake -- can I reply to the list?
Oops, I posted to the list by mistake too -- sorry about it. Anyway,
here is the email that I sent to Jonathan only by a mistake:
Just because we are using all the 2D drawing code to make the plots,
which is why the 3d code is so small, maintainable and is visually
consistent with 2D matplotlib. I believe that moving to OpenGL would
require a substantial effort.
Ok, now I understand the motivation. So if one wanted to go the OpenGL
route, it would have to be created as a matplotlib backend? Then the
3D plots would be fast enough.
Ondrej
and he replied in my previous email, that I just wanted to ask if I
can post to the list.
Ondrej
···
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Ondrej Certik <ondrej@...583...> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Jonathan Taylor <jonathan.taylor@...247...> wrote:
Sure, I thought it was going to the list too 
So no problem.
I am not sure what you can do with that module. It seems a shame to
waste. Perhaps it should be split out into a seperate 3d only
plotting library that cares less about being matplotlib'ish than
something packaged with MPL would. What do you think?
Jon.
···
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Ondrej Certik <ondrej@...583...> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Ondrej Certik <ondrej@...583...> wrote:
I posted only to you by a mistake -- can I reply to the list?
Oops, I posted to the list by mistake too -- sorry about it. Anyway,
here is the email that I sent to Jonathan only by a mistake:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Jonathan Taylor > <jonathan.taylor@...247...> wrote:
Just because we are using all the 2D drawing code to make the plots,
which is why the 3d code is so small, maintainable and is visually
consistent with 2D matplotlib. I believe that moving to OpenGL would
require a substantial effort.
Ok, now I understand the motivation. So if one wanted to go the OpenGL
route, it would have to be created as a matplotlib backend? Then the
3D plots would be fast enough.
Ondrej
and he replied in my previous email, that I just wanted to ask if I
can post to the list.
Ondrej
Yes, we could do that. The problem is that I don't have time to
maintain plotting stuff, so I need to find ways to attract someone
else to take over it. So maybe creating some optional addon to
matplotlib, as you say, could attract people's attantion.
Ondrej
···
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Jonathan Taylor <jonathan.taylor@...247...> wrote:
Sure, I thought it was going to the list too So no problem.
I am not sure what you can do with that module. It seems a shame to
waste. Perhaps it should be split out into a seperate 3d only
plotting library that cares less about being matplotlib'ish than
something packaged with MPL would. What do you think?