Talk:QuickDraw 3D

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconApple Inc. C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mention of Quesa Project?[edit]

I think it may be appropriate to mention the Quesa project, an open-source library based on the QuickDraw 3D API and using OpenGL as its low-level rendering engine. Since I am an administrator on that project, it might be considered a conflict of interest for me to make that edit. -- Jwwalker

Has Quesa "outgrown" QD3D in any way since it started? Sort of like how the Racket (programming_language) grew from the PLT dialect of Scheme, but is now considered a more-or-less separate language. An example for Quesa might be being able to directly access shaders and GLSL with reference to a single object face (I don't know if a per-surface shader is a feature or not) Jimw338 (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ship Date?[edit]

When did QuickDraw 3D first ship? --Jwwalker 16:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like 1995: [1]
We should probably look for at least some prerelease coverage indicating how far back development started, and list of version release dates, though. (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Quickdraw.png[edit]

Image:Quickdraw.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overall Tone[edit]

This article seems to take a very positive stance on the technology especially in regards to it's approach compared to other technologies of the time. It's an old product that I'm sure had it's uses but the overall vibe of this article lacks any form of objective neutrality —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, reading the article it gives the impression that the architecture and API model of QD3D would've been clearly preferrable for application programmers, compared to those of OGL or D3D. For instance, however, Microsoft provided a very similar layer in early version of Direct3D, called Retained Mode. It was discontinued again very quickly (after DirectX 3.0) because almost no commercial software used it. Clearly, the overwhelming majority of developers actually preferred to work on a lower level, closer to hardware (which was originally called Immediate Mode in Direct3D). I'm not familiar enough with how QD3D worked to know whether and how to mention this in the article though. (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]