SAC-PSG-CIGI Archives

June 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:
Roland Humphries <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
SAC-PSG-CIGI <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 3 Jun 2019 08:06:19 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (11 lines)
I understand the intention of using child attach points to attach multiple lights (one per attach point), but I don't think this is clearly introducing lights as a new concept within CIGI too well, I think all of this could probably be done better using standardised components instead of packets as many of these parameters are not going to be relevant for a lot of systems (and therefore will be invalid, e.g. IR intensities).

I think the most normal route for doing this in CIGI would be creating a new light entity for each light source and attaching that to the entity (either with an offset or attach point), then using components to set the values that are needed, that approach allows far more flexibility and doesn't directly couple this PCR with the attachment points PCR (as that will be implemented indirectly). What we are ending up with here is a fat packet that is trying to cover everything for everyone (which we know isn't a good idea from DIS), rather than dividing into more granular (system specific) components. An alternative to that (that I am using currently) is to define the light source attributes directly in the model and then just use control values, so there is no definition of light properties / location outside of what a driver might have.

In future systems I'd also expect to be defining lights in terms of physical properties with the renderer managing the spot / shaft effects automatically, rather than defining IG specific attributes (like shaft near clip), so in general I disagree with most of this approach to standardise what I think are IG specific light attributes.

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

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