Le mercredi 15 juin 2005 à 22:19 +0200, Melchior FRANZ a écrit :
> * Josh Babcock -- Wednesday 15 June 2005 21:50:
> > It seems that the material animation nullifies the alpha channel of .rgb
> > files mapped to the objects being animated.
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> > The objects face and ball both have alpha channels which go away when this
> > animation is commented back in.
> 
> The problem is, once again, lists of <object-name> that force the wrong
> objects together. They end up in the same ssg branch then and the following
> rotate animations work on all of them (which probably rotates the ball out
> of view). I've never fully understood that, either, but generally separating
> such animations into separate ones solves it. In your case you only need
> to have, for example:
> 
>  <animation>
>   <type>material</type>
>   <object-name>Face</object-name>
>   <object-name>Needle1</object-name>
>  ...
>  </animation>
> 
> 
>  <animation>
>   <type>material</type>
>   <object-name>Background</object-name>
>   <object-name>Ball</object-name>
>   ...
>  </animation>
> 
> In the case of the "material" animation it's better, though, to assign the
> same material to all concerned faces and then to only animate one 
> representative
> object with the <global> flag set. That's faster and avoids this kind of
> problems.
> 
> m.
> 
  That is right, however sometime when we inverse the priority it could
work.
In the Josh exemple, he could try to put the group at the end instead of
being declared the first.
I had exactly the same difficulties with very complexe retractable gears
with many components.
> 
-- 
Gerard


_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Reply via email to