Though I know gluCylinder is somewhat old(and glu too) and glut is still there(through freeglut) but I saw those two and wondering what's the difference ? besides that gluCylinder requires that you define a Quadric, and what's faster ? .
Asked
Active
Viewed 3,143 times
2 Answers
4
The original GLUT did not have a glutSolidCylinder() function. That appears to be something FreeGLUT added.
gluCylinder
Pros:
- Supports texture coordinate generation.
Cons:
- GLU is old. I mean, really really old. The spec was last updated in 1998, and I suspect that the available implementations are just as old. This means that it's using immediate mode rendering (
glBegin/glEnd) style, which is inefficient, and not available anymore in modern versions of OpenGL. - GLU support is starting to disappear from some platforms.
glutSolidCylinder
Pros:
- As long as you're comfortable with using FreeGLUT, it's still supported, with source code available.
- The FreeGLUT version seems to be able to use moderately modern rendering methods (VBOs), based on browsing the source code.
Cons:
- Does not generate texture coordinates. This was definitely not supported for most solids in GLUT, and as far as I can tell is still not supported for cylinders in FreeGLUT.
self-made
Rendering a cylinder is very easy. Personally, I would just write it myself.
Reto Koradi
- 53,228
- 8
- 93
- 133
0
I agree with @Reto. I prefer implementing a cylinder myself too. Specially because it has a simple parametric form (a stack of circles). Interestingly, I was helping somebody else to dray cylinders. Maybe you find that interesting too:
