I honestly just don't think it's a good idea to have rendering/
collision/etc handled in an mvc framework and I'm afraid that if I
made an example of how you "could" do it than people would think
that's how you "should" do it :/

Besides, robotlegs is meant to mediate regular DisplayObjects, so
you'd have to go against all those "guidelines" you're trying to
follow just to even get it working.

On Mar 23, 3:28 pm, Darcey Lloyd <[email protected]> wrote:
> I never get a say in it... I just get phone calls like,
>
> "can you use robotlegs?", "yes"
> "know papervision?", "yes"
>
> and when I get there, I convert them to the light which is Away3D but when I
> suggest not implementing Robotlegs or PureMVC for some of the tiny projects
> they have me work on, the parrot learned extensibility lecture begins, so
> now I don't bother trying.
>
> D
>
> On 23 March 2011 19:23, rhys thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Cool cool, I would recomend it though as bojinx works the same as robot
> > legs but much better at the same time and no need for half the stuff that
> > robot legs forces you to use, I understand what your saying though as
> > perhaps the client has requested robot legs but its worth suggesting bojinx
> > to them as its soooooo much better :)
> > On 23 Mar 2011 19:18, "Darcey Lloyd" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > *@Rhys:*
>
> > > I have to use Robotlegs or PureMVC - they are nearly always the job
> > > requirements.
>
> > > *@John*
> > > Nice video, very clean, very efficient...
> > > You have converted me to IntelliJ (installed and using) very nice, now I
> > > just need a list of shortcuts ;)
>
> > > The issue I have is where in RobotLegs would I place the logic for
> > > processing logic to render (enter frame), camera tweening and logic to
> > > handle a collision multiple objects (if 3D objects are considered as
> > > separate views).
> > > After watching the video I get this far:
>
> > > *Away3DContext.as *(mapViews to mediators and instantiate view
> > components)
> > > *Away3DEvent.as* (event constants)
>
> > > *Away3DViewComponent.as* (setup)
> > > *Away3DMediator.as*
>
> > > - Handle enter frame render
> > > - Handle render enable / disable notifications
> > > - Handle camera setup
> > > - Handle camera tweening notifications
>
> > > *Away3DCube1ViewComponent.as *(setup)
> > > *Away3DCubeMediator.as* (onClick handlers for change to random colour)
>
> > > *Away3DCube2ViewComponent.as* (setup)
> > > *Away3DCube2Mediator.as *(onClick handlers for change to random colour)
>
> > > but where would the logic go for handling the two view components (cube 1
> > > and cube 2) if I was to animate them bouncing around:
> > > where would be the correct place to process logic for a collision and
> > > change of animation direction.
>
> > > From here I am not sure:
>
> > > 1. Where would the correct place be for the logic to handle the animation
>
> > > of cube 1 and cube 2 view components (in the Away3DViewComponent.as)?
> > > 2. Where would the correct place be for the logic to handle collision
>
> > > detection (in the Away3DViewComponent.as)?
>
> > > If I am correct (not 100%), a view component should not be aware of other
> > > view components and should only handle logic for themselves.
>
> > > I understand the event system (I hope lol), just when it comes to
> > > implementing Away3D or enter frame handlers on views / components which
> > > require handling multiple interactive views at the same time, things get
> > a
> > > unclear. A great example would be.. Each time I click on the stage it
> > would
> > > add a Cube which bounces around much like a bat and ball game, but each
> > time
> > > a cube collides they would bounce off at an angle from each other.
>
> > > Or am I just missing something obvious which is staring me in the face?
>
> > > Thanks
>
> > > Darcey
>
> > > On 23 March 2011 18:08, rhys thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> Have you had a look at bojinx I believe it to be a much nicer and easier
> > >> set up than robot legs
> > >> On 23 Mar 2011 17:32, "John Brookes" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsrbDkW7pVw

Reply via email to