[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