Gerard Robin wrote: > 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. >
This grouping thing keeps coming up. It is a real pain. I guess the chances of getting the plib people to fix it are about nil though. Josh _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
