On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 09:03:29AM -0700, Ken Taylor wrote: > I guess my suggestion really comes down to, when in doubt, follow X3D, > because they're putting a lot of work into making this stuff flexible and > interoperable :)
Well, not neccesarily. I mean in the data design. Legacy VRML support tends to be a bit more important. But in general I agree with you about considering interop over ease of implementation in CrystalSpace. > As for ease of use, you want to support editing in-world, but I wouldn't > have a problem letting the client do most of the work translating the easy > editing interface to actual a3dl representation. Well, I sort of disagree, in a sense. One thing I want to see as we develop VOS tools is to expose all of the VOS concepts and structures directly to the user. (Then add helper tools on top, as needed.) I think this will result in a much more powerful and also consistent and easy to understant user experience. > Some people will want to be able to make lush, > interesting worlds with lots of advanced content, and others will want to > make things quickly and in real-time with primitives, and VOS should be able > to make both groups happy. Yes, exactly. And in fact th best way to support the lush graphics is to support import from tools like Maya and Blender that are well suited to that. But to support the primitives, and also tweaking of the lush and adding behaviors and application data is to also have an A3DL object model that's easy for the user to access directly, without going through other tools, if he needs to. Reed _______________________________________________ vos-d mailing list [email protected] http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
