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 17:53:27 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

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

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