Based on. NET 3D Development Framework/tool comparison

• Long time Wood has written a blog, so busy the day, also did not have a great deal to learn and comb. Recently happened to take over a 3D display of the live, although not how to understand, but also saw some plans, took some detours, after some superficial understanding (3D display the water is too deep), say my personal opinion.

1. Target

The main task of the project is to be able to accept data from the core modules (the original engineering data has been processed, including coordinate transformation, normalization, etc.) and the point cloud data to display, the core is written in C + +, and then I am responsible for the periphery, there is no hard language requirements.

2. The programme

I think we should find a way to use C # to realize this display problem. After a simple search, there are generally more reliable:

1. Xna/monogame
2. Silverlight
3. Sharpgl/sharpdx/opentk
4. Wpf

First, essentially, the 3D shows that the layer is called DirectX or OpenGL (regardless of software acceleration), which is only different from the level of their packaging. Next look at the application scenario:

Xna/monogame: Provides a more complete rendering pipeline, the operation of 3D model is very easy, more suitable for the development of 3D games, and then there is a point I do this development, did not see the mouse where, is not supported? It is worth noting that, as far as I know, XNA does not support WINFORM/WPF controls! (learned a little, not in depth)

Silverlight: Run as a client-side program for building RIA programs (P.S. Although the small soy sauce is not the development direction of Microsoft ... ), the core 3D display function is based on XNA, that is, the inheritance structure is not the same, it is worth saying that this can be implemented using ordinary WPF control to achieve the control of 3D graphics.

SHARPGL/SHARPDX/OPENTK: These are the. NET packages for the underlying DirectX or OpenGL, which is sure to be able to implement the required functionality, but because of the underlying encapsulation, it is somewhat more difficult to use it xna.

WPF: The display is DirectX-based, with built-in support for 3D feature presentation, with a few different modes of operation and XNA, but native WPF controls are supported.

3. Summary

From the simple comparison above, it can be found that, if there is time, through the SHARPGL this kind of method will be more appropriate to start from the bottom of the development, through WPF will be more suitable for my application scenario; Since XNA and Silverlight are no longer pushed by Microsoft, it's best to pause, Wait and see (of course, from the perspective of learning, learning is their own, mastery, not Bai Co).

Since I did not initially make a horizontal comparison, I directly used the development of the XNA. As a result, the men toss a half-day, told me not to come out, back again to redo, delayed a lot of time, after the hands still need to move the brain, should be warning.

P.S. Microsoft Developer Center Http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/windows/desktop/dn614993.aspx on the development of the technology to do a comparison, do Graphics-rich program, Microsoft still recommend C + +

Based on. NET 3D Development Framework/tool comparison