[GEM-dev] rc3 thoughts

[James Tittle II]

On Apr 7, 2004, at 5:19 AM, zmoelnig at iem.at wrote:

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

...ok, what I mean by fly-thru is moving freely about a scene...sure, 
this works ok as long as you are approaching the "lookat" object/point, 
but if you go "through"/pass by the point, all of a sudden you are 
flipped around so that you are looking at it again...that's what I 
don't like...

...the gluLookat() based camera can be imagined as a sphere surrounding 
a point, with the camera on the surface of the sphere always looking at 
the center...to go "forward", the sphere gets smaller, until you arrive 
at center point:  then you automatically flip around and look back at 
the object...I guess what you are talking about is a way around this 
where the "lookat" point is constantly changing?  That sounds like a 
lot of work, and I was hoping for a simpler, more generalized 
solution...

>> -  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.

...great!  I'll check it out...but then, I noticed your quick n'dirty 
method of getting pix_kaleidascope to work in YUV, so I've gone thru 
and changed the other "pete's-plugins-ports"...not in cvs yet, but 
should be by the end of the day...

>> - 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 ?


yay!

jamie