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

Reply via email to