Back to SISO Website
SISO Discussion Forums

Help for SAC-PSG-CIGI Discussion Forum List


SAC-PSG-CIGI Discussion Forum List

SAC-PSG-CIGI Discussion Forum List


SAC-PSG-CIGI@DISCUSSIONS.SISOSTDS.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

SISO Discussions Home

SISO Discussions Home

SAC-PSG-CIGI Home

SAC-PSG-CIGI Home

SAC-PSG-CIGI  May 2019

SAC-PSG-CIGI May 2019

Subject:

Re: CIGI PCR029 Ver C

From:

Curtis Schroeder <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SAC-PSG-CIGI <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 27 May 2019 17:44:15 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (66 lines)

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
>
>________________________________
>From: SAC-PSG-CIGI <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Curtis Schroeder <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 9:28:20 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: CIGI PCR029 Ver C
>
>Please find attached PCR029 Ver C for review and comment. Per the CIGI PSG meeting, work on this PCR should be wrapped up in one to two months.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Curt
>
>########################################################################
>
>To unsubscribe from the SAC-PSG-CIGI list, click the following link:
>https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdiscussions.sisostds.org%2Findex.htm%3FSUBED1%3DSAC-PSG-CIGI%26A%3D1&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C3a34a23d43ee4290eb1b08d6c2d400c0%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636910614034941992&amp;sdata=ROM3GMZRrV5ggSP0wXlPl%2FVadSXTa0CRCE%2BxwmRFZfU%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
>########################################################################
>
>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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search SISO Discussions

Search SISO Discussions


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Discussion Forum List

September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
February 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
March 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014

ATOM RSS1 RSS2