The Tone'ster wrote:
... I was wondering if there has ever been talk of exposing 3d models through a
metalanguage in XML, or maybe to a spec such as SVG (though I guess SVG is 2d,
not 3d).
I wouldn't be surprised if that happens some time, but given Davids
background I suspect he wants to put
Once upon a time, you were sitting and writing:
... I was wondering if there has ever been talk of exposing 3d models through a
metalanguage in XML, or maybe to a spec such as SVG (though I guess SVG is 2d,
not 3d).
In this way, a person might not have to run off and download/pay for/learn
Jim Wilson writes:
Well this probably isn't very impressive. But here it is. First view
from the pilot's seat. Things are very rough at this point.
http://www.spiderbark.com/fgfs/roughflightdeck.png
Good start. You'll be surprised how fast things go from there.
All the best,
Erik Hofman writes:
I wouldn't be surprised if that happens some time, but given Davids
background I suspect he wants to put out an IEEE draft first then ...
You haven't read my rants about standards bodies, have you?
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Elad Yarkoni writes:
FOA, I think VRML is the answer to your question (??),
not neccesarily in FlightGear.
Besdies, I do no underdtand if you refer the difficulties
in rendering, or modeling.
I would use VRML if plib supported it fully.
Moreover, PLIB has the ability to load 3D
The Tone'ster writes:
In this way, a person might not have to run off and download/pay
for/learn some heavy duty 3d program to render some sort of basic
aircraft frame, or building, or even cockpit.
I've considered adding support for defining simple geometry directly
in the XML, but it
David Findlay [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 02:41 pm, Jim Wilson wrote this piece of wisdom:
Well this probably isn't very impressive. But here it is. First view
from the pilot's seat. Things are very rough at this point.
Is that a 3D cockpit or a normal one? Thanks,
David Megginson wrote:
Erik Hofman writes:
I wouldn't be surprised if that happens some time, but given Davids
background I suspect he wants to put out an IEEE draft first then ...
You haven't read my rants about standards bodies, have you?
Eh, no.
Can you do them again, it sounds like
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Good start. You'll be surprised how fast things go from there.
Thanks. I hope you're right! There is a lot more geometry inside than the
u3a and certainly the a4. But yeah, getting this far is a bigger step than it
appears in the screenshot.
Best,
David Megginson writes:
Elad Yarkoni writes:
FOA, I think VRML is the answer to your question (??),
not neccesarily in FlightGear.
Besdies, I do no underdtand if you refer the difficulties
in rendering, or modeling.
I would use VRML if plib supported it fully.
Yuck - VRML as
Norman Vine writes:
The problem with AC3D is that it really needs a propriatary editor
even if it is an inexpensive one
Now that Blender is Open Source, you can create AC3D models using an
OSS modelling tool and a bit of Python.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, [EMAIL
Jim Wilson writes:
My thought at this point is that it should be possible to build an
ac3d file with surfaces on it for the gc display components. What
I need is the ability to animate the textures using texture
transforms. Would that be difficult to do David? I'd need to able
to
It's not the I _really_ feel the need.
It is just that the few 3d tools I have taken a look at, Maya, Blender and one
other one (can't rememeber the name, it was a bit ago) are complex to use.
Harder, it seems to me anyway, than thinking in terms of edges and nodes in
some 0,0,0 centered 3d
13 matches
Mail list logo
