Hi, Does it mean the manipulator classes in osgGA will change and become deprecated in the near future?
On a related issue, I found a bug in FlightManipulator. The code in performMovementRightMouseButton should probably be: _velocity -= eventTimeDelta * (_acceleration + fabs(_velocity)); The fabs is missing, which causes problems with negative velocities. performMovementRightMouseButton needs to be similarly changed. Cheers Eduardo On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Brad Huber <[email protected]> wrote: > Matt, > > You might take a look at the osgEarth project. The > osgEarthUtil::EarthManipulator (a CameraManipulator) that they are using > allows remapping of inputs to actions. For example you can program what > keys do and what mouse buttons and scrollwheels do. > > I'm not sure that it achieves a full decoupling that you're driving at, but > might be worth a look. > > -Brad > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt > Caron > Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 9:58 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [osg-users] How Camera Manipulators Work > > Chuck, > > I think I'm gonna come back to this thread in a little while with a > proposed > project to realize the mapping that has been discussed over the past few > entries. Maybe you can take a look at the proposal and give some feedback? > > I agree that most users probably find the current manipulators usable with > some tweaking, but for such an object oriented and modularized system, I > hate to think that the typical user is out there adjusting source code for > the manipulator and then calling it something else. I think this part of > the system is just far too tangled in its logic and should be opened up for > extensibility purposes. > > For those who find the current manipulators to be useful, theres no reason > we can't provide a factory to hand out all the versions of manipulators > that > people are used to - mapped to the IO that people are used to....so I think > we can keep it equally simple for users who don't want extensibility, but > at > the same time we can make new manipulators far easier for those of us with > unusual IO devices, or unusual manipulator logic. > > At the moment I'd say my two primary goals for this camera re-write are: > > 1) Separation of IO from Camera Manipulators > 2) Pluggable IO system with regard to Camera Manipulators > 3) Factory(s) to build the manipulators everyone is used to > > Thanks. > > Matt > > ------------------ > Read this topic online here: > http://forum.openscenegraph.org/viewtopic.php?p=32867#32867 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >
_______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
