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 17:53:27 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines)
OK, before I do major surgery on this PCR to remove the definition packet altogether, is there anyone that can present a use case where the CIGI host *MUST* be able to define/change the light lobe parameters on the fly instead of using a predefined definition loaded by the IG?

The only potential use case I'm thinking of would be something like a helicopter that could have an adjustable spotlight.

Would it be better to support both the lobe definition packet and IG defined Illumination Lobe IDs? This would be a corollary to DVC's GenesisIG allowing view definitions and view group assignments to be predefined on the IG.

Best regards,

Curt

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 05:31:41 -0400, Roland Humphries <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I'm saying much the same as I did before, but my main concern with this approach is that it defines a lot of rendering properties of light sources, rather than just common controllable properties. The approach we at XPI have taken (and would plan to take in the future) would be to model light sources in the DCC tool, the engine, or in common definition files (like CDB does), and only expose controls to the IG (in this case I'm not even sure there are any other than on/off and maybe intensity as % of maximum). Everything else is dependent on what the renderer is capable of / sensor requires, and trying to cover everything there is probably not sensible.
>I recommend that we implement light definition as a common component / extension rather than a standard packet, so it doesn't then mandate how light sources are done (due to the CIGI rule that you can't re-implement existing standard functionality).
>
>########################################################################
>
>To unsubscribe from the SAC-PSG-CIGI list, click the following link:
>https://discussions.sisostds.org/index.htm?SUBED1=SAC-PSG-CIGI&A=1

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

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