On Dec 10, 2007 8:27 PM, Jeremy Moles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One thing that should be kept in mind when using Cal3D is that in it's > current state, Cal3D isn't a skeletal system alone--it's a skeletal > animation system+mesh format, and one cannot be divorced from the other. > Furthermore, there is a lot of data reproduction in Cal3D that already > exists in OSG, and no way to easily (or cleanly) make changes therein.
How big is Cal3D? I ask in terms how much effort would it be required to reimplement the unique parts not found in the core OSG? > In the opinion of someone who is familiar with Cal3D, I'd say that we > wait a bit on inclusion of this until someone has the time to cleanup > the current plugin. Hardware skinning is a pretty common performance > boost these days, and whatever solution arises for OSG, I'd personally > look at support for this feature as the make-or-break aspect. I thought there was already hardware skinning support in place. So which versions which hardware skinning? > To be completely honest, character animation is such a huge issue unto > itself that it probably deserves a lot of discussion and review before > any steps are taken--but that's just my opinoin. Indeed - a good topic to break out into a separate thread... > P. S. When I finish a release-candidate version of osgHUD (or whatever > you want to change the name to), I'll be peddling that for inclusion as > well. :) I've made a number of changes in the last few days if anyone is > keeping up with SVN, and almost done with a decent implementation of a > "table" layout, very similar to how HTML tables are done... however, no > one posted any complaints to my first thread, so I'm just going to keep > proceeding as normal, though I did remove the silly functional code that > no one could have possibly understood but myself... it's a shame how > difficult it is to do use something as [conceptually] easy as > std::for_each()--it's a nightmare, when you can almost always achieve > the same thing cleaner and with less code using for(iter;iter;++)... If you can get osgHUD ready for integration then I'm very open to reviewing it with a view to inclusion in 2.4/2.6. We do need to save people from the trials and tribulations of going with something like CEGUI. W.r.t awkwardness of some program concepts, C++ is the culprit here. My own feeling is that scripting languages shine for high level GUI work. One could use a scripting language for both the control and the layout setup. How to make this integration possible is another big topic... Robert. _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
