Farshid Lashkari wrote: > > I'd like to avoid the first method, since it introduces a couple issues. As I > mentioned in my last email, how would composite materials be handled? Should > the assigned texture unit for each map type be customizable, and if so, how > would the interface for assigning the texture units work? If you are not > concerned with composite materials and are fine with hard-coded texture > units, then this seems like something I can add soon.
I'm not too clear about the composite material issue you mention: what is exactly the problem you see? And how is that case handled today? Anyway, what I would like from the standpoint of who uses the exported geometry is a well-defined way to interpret the material definitions. As I mentioned, if you export an object from Blender you have a clear mapping between texture units and map types. This is probably the easiest way for me to start coding my shaders. It requires writing additional maps compared to the diffuse+selfIllum ones you can write today; and with a well-defined way to know which maps you have in your material. Something else we should probably keep in mind is backward compatibility, in the sense that what was exported by the previous version should look similar to what we can write today, as many people have probably built code to parse materials and create shaders. Maybe we could start by assigning units 0 and 1 for diffuse and self-illum, as this is what you were getting before in most cases. And then use higher layers for the newly exported channels. Maybe for the new description strings we still need more brainstorming but let's start it :) Luca ------------------ Read this topic online here: http://forum.openscenegraph.org/viewtopic.php?p=39432#39432 _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
