On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 22:36 +0000, Matthew Allum wrote: > 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.
It wasn't a request. I just wanted to understand what clutter can do. > 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 ? It wasn't clear enough to me, hence the question. I would add an explicit statement that it's not the depth dimension of the object itself. But that's me. > > 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). Just make it clear that objects are 2D, with no depth, but that they move in 3D space. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com -- To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
