SAC-PSG-CIGI Archives

May 2019

SAC-PSG-CIGI@DISCUSSIONS.SISOSTDS.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Curtis Schroeder <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
SAC-PSG-CIGI <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 27 May 2019 19:45:57 -0400
Content-Type:
multipart/mixed
Parts/Attachments:
Rev D attached to add instancing and optional Child Attach Point ID in place of the (X,Y,Z) tuple.

Curt

On Mon, 27 May 2019 17:44:15 -0400, Curtis Schroeder <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Hi Eric,
>
>Ver C clearly defines two packets: a definition packet that includes an "Illumination Lobe ID" and a control packet that references an "Illumination Lobe ID". It is definitely the intent to support two instances of the same lobe definition.
>
>I see what the oversight is. The original authors were probably only thinking about one lobe per entity. The control packet needs to be augmented to include an instance parameter so multiple instances can be attached to a single entity.
>
>Dovetailing with PCR035 to optionally use attachment points is also an interesting suggestion.
>
>Thanks for your input,
>
>Curt
>
>On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 03:32:14 +0000, Eric Snyder <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>I like that we went to the trouble of defining lobes pretty completely here.
>>
>>But can someone add a sketch showing what the lobe and the shaft are?  That might also invite more comment.
>>
>>I think a more straightforward design would allow for �DEFINTIONS� vs �instances� of lobes.  It appears here that we�re going to need to define a definition for each instance of a lobe, regardless of whether they are identical.
>>
>>I think a better design would be to have a �definition� packet, and a �instance� packet that can use any previous definition.
>>
>>For instance, the left and right headlight of a car both use the lobe definition A, but they are numbered 1 and 2, so that we can control them separately.    We might have a definition for a lobe that is used as a spotlight on a tank, and then have 100 tanks in the scene who share that same definition.
>>
>>I�d also say that the control packet should allow a lobe instance to be tied to an articulated part of the entity, which would make much more sense than �placing a lobe in the air�.  I realize that we missed that years ago in views, but it would be nice to start lobes off with a more complete implementation.
>>
>>Overall, it is much more straightforward for designers to have modelers to model articulated parts and bones in exact locations in the model itself, and then have the lobes just attached to those parts.  That way, dynamics can handle the position and rotation of the parts, and the light lobes automatically follow.  All the IG implementors do then is tie the lobe into the scene at the proper part/bone.
>>
>>As for the addition of the animation parameters, I�m not sure what we�re trying to do there.  Usually, having the IG perform independent timing of something happening in the scene is a bad idea.
>>
>>And finally, it would be nice to be able to define a lobe as �shadow casting� (relatively expensive) or not.  In a lot of cases, designers might wish to use non-shadow-casters, especially for lights that are in the distance, as opposed to shadow-casters, which are usually used for in the near scene.
>>
>>-later
>>
>>-e
>>
>>Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10



########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the SAC-PSG-CIGI list, click the following link:
https://discussions.sisostds.org/index.htm?SUBED1=SAC-PSG-CIGI&A=1


ATOM RSS1 RSS2