Erik Hofman wrote: > Tim Moore wrote: >> If people really don't like the effects syntax, I might be willing to hold >> my nose >> and use the existing property implementation. I'm also not committed to >> having the >> effects properties be of class SGPropertyNode; they might be a subtype. > > I have two questions after reading this: > > 1. Will ambient/r, ambient/g and ambient/b still be supported in other > locations besides xml embedded effects en techniques? That's my plan. > > 2. As I see this now this is a way to define custom (not hardcoded) > effects. This means only a small number of these configuration files > will be created and probably only by developers who know what they are > doing. Am I right? That's hard to predict. We'll probably have a set of standard effects that modelers will use most often, but if someone wants to write their own shader program, they would write an effects file too. I hope that, because of effects file inheritance, most files will be shorter than this example.
Tim > > If both answers are 'yes' then I see no problem with adding it, > otherwise there's still gonna be a bit of discussion I guess. > > Erik > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel