[GEM-dev] rc3 thoughts

[zmoelnig at iem.at]

Zitiere James Tittle II <tigital at mac.com>:

> ...can't believe we're finally really so close...
> 
> ...that is, until I start looking closely at some things that were on 
> my plate:
> 
> -  I don't like [camera] in it's current form, because it doesn't do 
> what it should!  ATM, it's just a kind of substitute for changing 
> GemMan::m_lookat[] variables, which just use the gluLookAt() 
> function...sure, this is an ok way to have a camera that "looks at" a 
> particular point in a scene, but this doesn't seem to be the correct 
> way to do a true "free-floating" camera, which would allow flythroughs
> 
> and such (as of now, if you "fly-thru", you always remain anchored to 
> the original point)...looking back on this, I remember getting stuck 
> with the gluLookAt() method, because it's so integral in the gemchain 
> :-( ...anyone have other ideas?

i don't undestand the exact problem.
glLookat can handle original points: you can realize a "fly-thru" with 
"view"-messages (although i admit that it is rather nasty that you have to do
everything by hand, instead of simple "roll"ing etc.)


> 
> -  pix_objects that don't have the ability to deal with a certain pixel
> 
> format just return "pix object cannot handle *", which isn't very 
> informative:  what if someone has many pix's, but only one isn't 
> supporting the needed pixel format?

indeed i have always wanted the objects to know their own name.
since you requested it, i have checked it into the CVS now:
so the error now is more like "pix object [pix_alpha] cannot handle YUV".
but of course, still the user has no clue about what could be done on their side
to fix this. 


> 
> - I'm really starting to be against naming this "0.888":  we've worked
> 
> the above mentioned), surely we're at v1.0?

well, as i have said before, i am afraid of "1.0"
anyhow, if all (or most) of the developers prefer v1.0 then we should just make it.
so chris, daniel, günter ?

mfg.aser
IOhannes