I'm always up to give a hand, but as long as I'm helpul, so if I can, it will be with pleasure :)
seems that there is a problem with the calculateOrientationXY method when the character is a space :s On 18 jan, 02:15, Li <[email protected]> wrote: > Sure! > > Let me know if you want to participate in the core of the development. > > > > On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:10 PM, G. <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I see... and that's also why there were some angles where the extrude > > materials become transparents I guess... > > anyway don't forget to keep me aware of the evolutions > > > On 18 jan, 00:02, Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Well, all this makes sense. But... > > > > As I said before, we need to experiment with shape primitives a bit more > > > before deciding which is the best way to incorporate them in the > > framework. > > > A shape primitive is different from a face primitive in that it can have > > > much more than 3 vertices, besides from containing different ways to > > > concatenate them. Given that the engine is designed to work with > > tri-faces, > > > this makes shape primitives come into conflict at particular situations. > > > With this, I'm reconsidering a complete re-structuring of the branch > > right > > > now. Perhaps an extension of the core face element that supports curved > > > sides, I dont know... There is a lot to experiment before advancing, but > > the > > > inflection point is close. An implementation like that would indeed be > > very > > > powerful. > > > > On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 6:37 PM, G. <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Well, > > > > > I started using 3D with Five3D, and I spent some times on the > > > > different classes. I think Mathieu Badimon's philosophy on his > > > > framework is actually the best and that it would have to be the > > > > starting point of the developement of the branch, as you did. > > > > > concerning the options, I think that the best solution would be to mix > > > > the two : from one point keeping the Away3D chain and create/redesign > > > > classes so the branch would be the closest possible to the > > > > ActionScript API. > > > > > Basically, and in regard to my experiments, and from a user's point of > > > > view, I would see something like this: > > > > > - making the actual Shape3D class become a Graphics3D class, I mean > > > > giving it the same functionalities as the Graphics class. > > > > - making a Shape3D class which would basically be a wrapper for vector > > > > shapes, with x, y and z coordinates (and maybe rotationX, rotationY, > > > > rotationZ, though it's not really important for a start unlike x, y > > > > and z coordinates) > > > > - making a Sprite3D class a part of the actual chain, but with the > > > > ability to add Shapes and other Sprites as children, and maybe have > > > > something like the actual Sprite class in the API: a graphics getter/ > > > > setter (and Sprite being a mesh and not only a container would be the > > > > best) > > > > > with that i think that the branch would have a solid basis and the > > > > maximum flexibility. I've seen during my experiments with the > > > > TextField3D primitive that designing the text letter by letter first > > > > opens to more possibilities (such as spotting an expression, or > > > > changing some words' font, isolating some words/expressions and being > > > > able to act on it as a group, like changing its z property or make > > > > some rotations) and is also faster with less code (and drawing the > > > > text content word by word is even faster but it reduces the > > > > possibilities). > > > > > what are you thinking about it? > > > > > Peace > > > > G > > > > > On 17 jan, 19:52, Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > G, > > > > > > When I started designing the textfields branch, I tried to reproduce > > the > > > > > Shape, Sprite, etc chain in the Actionscript API, but in 3D. Of > > course, I > > > > > started by making it functional as simple as possible with the idea > > of > > > > > extending it in the future so that it behaves just as that chain > > does. I > > > > was > > > > > inspired to do this by Mathieu Badimon's Five3D engine. It functions > > just > > > > as > > > > > the AS3 graphics chain... simple and beautiful =) > > > > > > So currently we have a few things designed that sort of work that > > way, > > > > but > > > > > not exactly. A lot of functionality is missing in regard of this > > chain > > > > such > > > > > as the ability of Sprite3D's to contain other Sprite3D's, etc. But > > before > > > > > actually extending the branch to support these missing features, we > > are > > > > > currently re-evaluating the core of the shape primitive in the > > branch: > > > > We're > > > > > currently thinking about 2 options: > > > > > > 1) Extend the branch by making more classes so that the graphics > > chain is > > > > > reproduced more precisely or > > > > > > 2) Remove this chain and make the shape primitive be inherent in > > other > > > > > Away3D classes. Away3D already has a chain for this with classes like > > > > > Object3D, ObjectContainer3D, etc so it could be redundant to design a > > > > whole > > > > > new chain for elements that are based on shape primitives instead of > > face > > > > > primitives... > > > > > > As you see, the branch is currently near the end of it's first > > > > experimental > > > > > stage. It is a good point to reframe it entirely and think about how > > it > > > > will > > > > > oficially merge with the main branch. There are however more > > expriments > > > > to > > > > > do... We are just begginning to understand the shape primitive, so a > > > > little > > > > > more experimentation before the official framework is built wouldn't > > be > > > > bad. > > > > > > So, the points you make are very good G, and all this will have to be > > > > > considered upon deciding the future of the branch... What are your > > > > thought > > > > > about all this? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Li > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 4:19 PM, G. <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hey, > > > > > > > I was wondering if there was a way to make Sprite3D able to add > > other > > > > > > Sprite3D as children (in additon to the ability to add Shapes3D)? > > I've > > > > > > seen on a parent class that there is an addElement() method, but > > it's > > > > > > no more reachable at Sprite3D's level > > > > > > > Second thought: maybe it would be interesting that Shape3D would > > have > > > > > > x,y and z coordinates (it would permit for example to build words > > from > > > > > > single chars by only doing some addChild instead of redrawing > > > > > > everything) > > > > > > > On 16 jan, 22:12, Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > yeaaaah > > > > > > > ;D thanks > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 4:11 PM, G. <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > hey there, > > > > > > > > > that's pretty neat what you're doing with the shading material. > > > > > > > > and yep the textfield branch is going to be really cool ;) > > > > > > > > > peace > > > > > > > > > On 15 jan, 21:40, Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Cool G! > > > > > > > > > > I'm busy at the time developing more graphics stuff related > > to > > > > > > primitive > > > > > > > > > shape rendering, like shading materials, backface culling, > > fixing > > > > > > sorting > > > > > > > > > bugs, etc: > >http://www.lidev.com.ar/demos/textfieldsmaterials18/ > > > > > > > > > > I trust you will develop cool stuff on your end. So yey! > > Double > > > > > > > > development > > > > > > > > > speed for the textfields branch! > > > > > > > > > > cheers > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 3:47 PM, G. <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ok then, > > > > > > > > > > > meanwhile I will continue my developements as I will use > > these > > > > > > classes > > > > > > > > > > for my actual project, so I might add some new features etc > > but > > > > > > I'll > > > > > > > > > > keep you in touch when the time comes. > > > > > > > > > > > bests > > > > > > > > > > G > > > > > > > > > > > On 15 jan, 12:26, Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Cool, I'll take a look as soon as I can! > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!! > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:58 PM, G. <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I uploaded a rar in the files section called > > > > TextElementSrc.rar > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep me in touch and bon courage ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > G > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 14 jan, 14:18, "G." <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok i prepare something for today > > > > > > > > > > > > > cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 14 jan, 14:04, Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey G, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awesome work!! Can you upload or send a working > > demo of > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > source? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've got my own battle here with other topics in > > the > > > > > > branch... > > > > > > > > I'll > > > > > > > > > > let > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wishlist mature for a few days and take priorities > > from > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > while > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > solve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my current problem. Once I get to text handling be > > sure > > > > I > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > consider > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please send a demo =) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:52 AM, G. < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok I just discovered the place to upload files on > > the > > > > > > group > > > > > > > > ... I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really should sleep more ... anyway you can find > > the > > > > rar > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > files > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > section. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep me in touch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > G > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 14 jan, 12:30, "G." <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well, seems that I still can't send things to > > your > > > > > > email > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 14 jan, 03:15, "G." <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry I might have been too tired, but in > > the > > ... > > plus de détails »
