Hi; On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 13:24 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > > > > > > Maybe I'm even wrong about the extruded depth. Does > > > clutter_actor_set_depth() set the z position of the object or the z > > > dimension of the object? > > > > Z position. Maybe we should rename this and actually make depth a kind > > of volume like prop (or drop it). Would that seem more logical ? > > I think so yes. It should at least be made clearer in the API > documentation for that function. > > Is there any actual way to set an extruded depth then, or do actors now > have zero depth?
So we spoke a bit about extending actor so they were effectively box like volumes - though this wouldn't be to hard on the surface it has some further reaching consequences which could take a bit of working out. Thus its probably safest to punt until after 0.6. If somebody really wants this, it would be possible to at least prototype with a subclass of ClutterActor (this may even be the best general solution). If someone does this please log in bugzilla. Also note the docs for set_depth, do say; "Sets the Z co-ordinate of self to depth. The units of which are dependant on the perspective setup." Which I think is pretty clear ? > For instance, can I ever see anything on screen if I > rotate a rectangle so only its edge is facing me? Probably not if you rotate it right in the centre of the perspective at least. I dont think this is a practical problem though. > > I've > > been a bit concerned about doing this in the past as having a set_z > > could kind of make people think Clutter really is a general 3D engine > > kind of thing. > > That also just needs to be stated clearly, I think. For the uninitiated > it's not immediately clear that that's what all these iPhoneish UIs have > in common. I agree. Any ideas on what can be said here without being more confusing appreciated (I usually say 2D with 3d effects, which is a bit sucky). > > > > Is this a limitation of OpenGL ES, or just a design decision for > > > Clutter? > > > > > > > Design decision. If you start really heavily supporting 3D its really > > difficult to keep things simple as well as Im not heavily convinced that > > full full 3D really buys you much UI wise beyond crazed 1980's > > neuromancer style things > > I tend to agree. I just didn't see this strategy from the start. > Ok cool. Many thanks; == Matthew -- To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
