Hi Filip, I've just reviewed your changes and left wondering whether it wouldn't just be OK to call the camera->accept(_eventVisitor) on each slave that doesn't share the master's scene graph. Is there a reason why you call accept(..) on each of the slave's children instead of the slave camera directly?
Robert. On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Filip Holm <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Robert, > > Sorry if I'm double posting my submission. I just realized that all the > other submissions had the [osg-submission] prefix in the subject field and > since I didn't get any response I was thinking this might be requirement > (Although it's not listed on the Submissions Protocol list). I appreciate > the fact that you are busy and this is by no means meant to rush > things. I just want to make sure I did things right, since this is my first > submission . > Motivation for change: > I ran into a problem where updateCallback was not called for slave camera > that didn't use mastersSceneData.(Se example > SlaveCameraForUniformCallback.cpp) > After some digging I found that this is because the event- and updateVisitor > only traverses the masterSceneData and does not handle slaves with their own > "scene". > > Changes made: > I did a minor change to Viewer and CompositeViewer to get the subgraph > traversal to work for slaves with their own "scene". > > Testing carried out: > See attached example. (Also tested against several cases in own product) > > Changes are made against revision: 11844 > Filip > > > > _______________________________________________ > osg-submissions mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-submissions-openscenegraph.org > > _______________________________________________ osg-submissions mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-submissions-openscenegraph.org
