Hello hello I'm back! >Yes, so perhaps as a first step hiding the transform and just giving access to >s/getHeight() would be safer. If >OceanTechnique subclasses from >MatrixTransform, then people will think they can position it by calling >>oceanTechnique->setMatrix(), which might lead to problems as you say.
Yes that sounds perfectly reasonable, although you'll still have to update the bounds calculation in updateMipmaps. Just one variable though. > The problem with the offset to _startPos is that for it to take effect, > you'll have to regenerate the geometry, am I right? Whereas with a transform > (perhaps limiting it to z offset as discussed above) the change would be > instantaneous and not change anything in the geometry. Yes that's right, like I say I didn't think it was the best way to proceed rather one for a quick solution. Will hopefully be back on dev soon. Regards, Kim. 2009/7/23 Jean-Sébastien Guay <[email protected]>: > Hi Kim, > >> Adding in a transform between OceanScene and OceanTechnique would be >> ok, aslong as it's just a translation on the z axis. Any other >> transformations (scaling x/y trans, rotations) would cause problems >> with the mipmap level calculations and the tracking of the sea >> relative to the camera position. > > Yes, so perhaps as a first step hiding the transform and just giving access > to s/getHeight() would be safer. If OceanTechnique subclasses from > MatrixTransform, then people will think they can position it by calling > oceanTechnique->setMatrix(), which might lead to problems as you say. > > >> Alternatively a quick hack would be add an offset to the _startPos >> variable in FFTOceanSurface, or even make it a member variable of the >> base class. That way you could position the ocean surface at any point >> on the x,y,z and *i think* it would all still work. However, I think >> perhaps adding in support for matrix transforms is a more desirable >> solution. > > The problem with the offset to _startPos is that for it to take effect, > you'll have to regenerate the geometry, am I right? Whereas with a transform > (perhaps limiting it to z offset as discussed above) the change would be > instantaneous and not change anything in the geometry. > >> I apologise for the vague answer but I don't have time at the moment >> to dig around and test out how it would be done best. > > You call that vague? I thought it was pretty darn detailed! :-) > > Thanks, > > J-S > -- > ______________________________________________________ > Jean-Sebastien Guay [email protected] > http://www.cm-labs.com/ > http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ > _______________________________________________ > osg-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org > _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
