[GEM-dev] vertex_array
chris clepper
cgc at humboldtblvd.com
Sat Aug 20 02:47:34 CEST 2005
I don't agree at all. It doesn't make any sense to have the arrays
with sizes that do not fit the data type. I think the usefulness of
switching vertex with color or normal data is very minor and it
simply won't work without translating that data any way.
Vertex data can be of any range for x,y,z,w, but color and texcoods
range from 0..1. Plus, the texcoords are only two elements so how do
you reconcile that? Have the results of cramming one data type into
the other even been proven effective at all?
The user should know what that data format is or else they will be
feeding four elements to an object manipulating texcoords or normals
and wondering why in the hell only two or three values do anything.
I intended these objects to be a more advanced set of tools for those
who have hit the limit of static geometry, and it's not unreasonable
to expect someone to know the basics of 3D and OpenGL at that point.
The idea to have a single object that works on all of the data types
is a good one. There's no reason these objects cannot take an
argument or message to set the array to be manipulated and the object
then choosing the right loop to run.
Honestly, I vote for no vertex data objects at all over forcing the
data into inappropriate containers. I would just change the objects
back to the proper formats for my own use which is what I'm doing now.
cgc
On Aug 19, 2005, at 10:04 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>
> well, i do still believe that a generic approach would be better.
>
> whether the arrays are all 4-elements floating point or not is
> something
> that should be of no concern to the user.
>
> do we agree on that ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/gem-dev/attachments/20050819/a9b6c808/attachment.htm>
More information about the GEM-dev
mailing list