# Volumetric Rendering Progress **URL:** \ **Category:** Development\ **Created:** [March 23, 2025, 5:57pm UTC](https://discuss.avogadro.cc/t/volumetric-rendering-progress/6865 "2025-03-23T17:57:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ghutchis](https://discuss.avogadro.cc/user_avatar/discuss.avogadro.cc/ghutchis/32/456_2.png) [@ghutchis](https://discuss.avogadro.cc/u/ghutchis)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2025, 5:57pm UTC](https://discuss.avogadro.cc/t/volumetric-rendering-progress/6865/1 "2025-03-23T17:57:27Z")
Just wanted to share some progress from @perminder-17 > > > Some results which are good. > > > \## When the alpha is low. > > https://github.c…om/user-attachments/assets/d68920a4-e28e-4ba3-8798-12d83139f39b > > > \## When the alpha is high. > https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/160b69bb-1836-4857-a283-9fcee598e399 > > > You can see I have changed the loop order in the cube, which is still not perfect and will break the flying-edges code so we need to find any workaround for it. Which means (different loop order for flying edges and different loop-order for volumetric rendering). > > \## With original flying-edges loop order for cube data (BENZENE) > > !\[Screenshot from 2025-03-14 23-31-28\](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/8914a719-a76a-481d-a030-72b665bc536d) > > \## With updated loop order for cube data (BENZENE) > > !\[Screenshot from 2025-03-14 23-38-39\](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b57b6207-5060-4774-abee-5b3a44e56ced) > > > \# SOME TODO'S > > 1. Resizing the framebuffers when we resize the screen. > 2. Updating the cube's data with correct loop order > 3. Scaling the volumetric mesh compared with the actual molecule rendered on the screen. > 4. Adding colors support from UI. > 5. Adding different sets of colors texture (2 colors, one for positive and one for negetive, @ghutchis will help in this. :) ). > 6. Cleanup in the code and removing unnecessary code blocks. Benzene HOMO: ![Volumetric rendering of benzene HOMO](https://discuss.avogadro.cc/uploads/default/original/2X/2/264cb290b5cb2a15b13743eceaacf1cd51f73978.jpeg) Caffeine HOMO: ![Voumetric rendering of caffeine HOMO](https://discuss.avogadro.cc/uploads/default/original/2X/6/6b318e6b85fc030b8cf71f7d82e162a36471203b.jpeg) This should be ready for Windows and Linux soon. (It turns out Mac needs some work because of how Apple handles OpenGL.. but don’t worry – I’ve literally wanted this rendering style on my Mac since we started Avogadro.) ---
**Author:** ![perminder-17](https://discuss.avogadro.cc/user_avatar/discuss.avogadro.cc/perminder-17/32/2043_2.png) [@perminder-17](https://discuss.avogadro.cc/u/perminder-17)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2025, 7:36pm UTC](https://discuss.avogadro.cc/t/volumetric-rendering-progress/6865/2 "2025-03-23T19:36:27Z")
I’ll love to see the volumetric rendering in the actual software very soon😊. ---
**Author:** ![ghutchis](https://discuss.avogadro.cc/user_avatar/discuss.avogadro.cc/ghutchis/32/456_2.png) [@ghutchis](https://discuss.avogadro.cc/u/ghutchis)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2025, 8:09pm UTC](https://discuss.avogadro.cc/t/volumetric-rendering-progress/6865/3 "2025-03-25T20:09:58Z")
One thing to ask is the interface. At the moment, there’s a separate “Volumes” rendering option. Would it be better to change the current “Meshes” to “Surfaces” and offer different rendering styles as an option? - isosurface - mesh - volumetric I’m thinking that having separate “volume” and “surface / mesh” render types in the list might be confusing. Thoughts? ---
**Author:** ![perminder-17](https://discuss.avogadro.cc/user_avatar/discuss.avogadro.cc/perminder-17/32/2043_2.png) [@perminder-17](https://discuss.avogadro.cc/u/perminder-17)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2025, 3:16am UTC](https://discuss.avogadro.cc/t/volumetric-rendering-progress/6865/4 "2025-03-26T03:16:04Z")
Hi geoff, do you mind explaining a bit more? is that’s only changing the name of meshes to surfaces and changing the name “Volumes” to “volumetric”? Sorry for the inconvenience :") ---
**Author:** ![matterhorn103](https://discuss.avogadro.cc/user_avatar/discuss.avogadro.cc/matterhorn103/32/1751_2.png) [@matterhorn103](https://discuss.avogadro.cc/u/matterhorn103)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2025, 5:48am UTC](https://discuss.avogadro.cc/t/volumetric-rendering-progress/6865/5 "2025-03-26T05:48:06Z")
I think that’s a good idea to combine them all under a single display type with different options, since you’re rendering the same thing in each case, just with a different presentation. ---
**Author:** ![ghutchis](https://discuss.avogadro.cc/user_avatar/discuss.avogadro.cc/ghutchis/32/456_2.png) [@ghutchis](https://discuss.avogadro.cc/u/ghutchis)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2025, 2:01pm UTC](https://discuss.avogadro.cc/t/volumetric-rendering-progress/6865/6 "2025-03-26T14:01:52Z")
I’m suggesting to merge the new “Volumes” class into the meshes / surfaces class and yes renaming as “surfaces” (or something better). My concern is that in the current pull request, having a second render type will be a bit confusing. Most users will think “I want to generate an orbital” and whether it’s a surface or a volumetric rendering is more of a style than something separate. It doesn’t have to happen in the current pull request – I’m just looking for feedback on the UI.