On Jan 11, 2008 2:52 PM, Kevin Gillette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i think if we don't care about pie2 compatibility, then we at least need to > drop the BSP stuff
Already done. > what i would like to see is the ability to specify > any number of texpages that may go with a pie (maybe up to 16) What would be the gain of doing this? I am thinking that reuse of textures is and is probably going to be minimal between different models in any case, so why not use a single texture for each model (or several models per texture, as now)? There is a high performance penalty on switching texture pages while drawing, and the drawing code for when we get VBOs will need to be more complicated to deal with it. > also, i think it would be ideal to either specify a LEVEL-OF-DETAIL system > that can be in PIE6 that is analagous to the mipmapping system we have in > place. That is an interesting idea. > for terminology, we should reserve the PIE2 "LEVELS" and "LEVEL" > directive for this purpose, instead using new "FRAMES" and "FRAME" > directives to achieve what LEVEL had been used for before (which was just > animation via one of two ways, afaik). What do we do with the existing animations, then? One idea that has been dancing around in the back of my head is that we could use 3DS as our native model format, and add animation/team colour information in a separate file. We would probably have to regenerate/recreate the extra file whenever the 3DS file is less than trivially changed, but with a simple tool this may not be tool much hassle. Then artists may view and edit models in their favourite tool of choice, and only need to use an external tool when they are done and want to test it. - Per _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
