gnu3dkit-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu3dkit-dev] OGL 2.0 shading


From: Philippe C . D . Robert
Subject: Re: [Gnu3dkit-dev] OGL 2.0 shading
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:14:19 +0100

On Sunday, January 26, 2003, at 11:39  Uhr, Gerard Iglesias wrote:
On Sunday, January 26, 2003, at 05:43 PM, Philippe C.D. Robert wrote:
On Sunday, January 26, 2003, at 12:16  Uhr, Gerard Iglesias wrote:
Maybe the G3DCamera would be able to be present in a 3D scene, as a 3D node ? Maybe not a simple 3D note pointing to the camera will do the trick, but I like the idea of a camera being a graphic node ?

I don't like this concept too much, although I am aware that many scene graphs use it. Why do you think it should be done this way?

Because a lot of camera can be used in a scene with different role, and sometimes I want to see them and control them in the scene from the point of view of an other.

I agree this should be supported, see below.

But the camera you see and control in the scene can be a kind of special 3D node that is a camera manipulator, not the camera itself...

Yes, exactly. Either you use a node transformation to position the matrix and/or use a so called rotator to orientate the cam.

And maybe the thing I am confused is the way the camera is designed is a mix of a 3D view plus the frustum camera, without being a view. Ok, I forgot that this way allow to connect the camera to an NSView or something else, hence doesn't depend on AppKit (it was the way I was trying to use gnistep+3DKit 2 years ago, when I was still in a graphics company :( ).

My idea was to provide a clean MVC concept here, so the camera is the controller which displays the model (=scene) using a view. This is an important difference to the original NeXT 3DKit, where the camera was a subclass of NSView.

But it would be better to me to separate the view functionalities to the frustum ones.

What do you mean exactly here? Should we again provide a separate G3DFrustum object as in 0.3.x? I removed this separation because it did IMHO not add value to the design but cause communication overhead during rendering (when view-frustum culling).

-Phil
--
Philippe C.D. Robert
http://www.nice.ch/~phip





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]