Slope Meta Command


Re: Slope Meta Command
#22
Roland Melkert Wrote:If we go the non TEXMAP route I would prefer 'd', but if we somehow merge it into the texmap spec I would go for a/b or a separeate surface definition meta, all this so the texmap meta can reference a surface finish to use instead of a png file.

But please note I wrote those ideas/suggestions while trying to convince people to extend the texmap meta / mechanics, If we decide to go the separate route I agree on using a simple enum approach instead.

Okay. I am definitely in favor of -not- using the texmap spec. The 3-d physical material and finish of a physical part is not something you can describe with texturing - there are lots of equally legitimate ways to represent the effect when doing 3-d graphics for which texturing isn't necessary.

Quote:Where did you read the nesting limitations for texmap? Because as far I know it isn't limited at all. Subparts can have textures of their own it will just override any inherited active one. It say so in the spec:
Quote:The texture will remain active when processing an included file unless overridden within that file.
I implemented this in LDCad using a simple stack push/pop approach.

I read this:

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what they mean? I see the language about popping the state now, so ... I guess this means nesting is allowed -only- by sub-parts.

Anyway, for the sake of discussion, we can treat texmap as being nested via a stack. I think I am proposing that:

- Surface finish meta be a different state variable than texturing.
- Surface finish meta support push/pop semantics and be allowed to be in sub-parts.

So - same rules as texmap, but orthogonal to texmap, and not texture based.

Quote:This is why I wanted to prevent adding another on/off mechanism. But like I wrote if we go the separate state route, it is better to keep it simple like Orion indicated, I'm just a bit concerned about adding things which can also be done by extending existing things.

A valid concer - I would strenuously argue though that part finish cannot be done by texture mapping alone, and a high level enum is much more reasonable than a low level material property system.

cheers
Ben
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Messages In This Thread
Slope Meta Command - by Orion Pobursky - 2015-10-21, 1:59
Re: Slope Meta Command - by Travis Cobbs - 2015-10-21, 4:37
Re: Slope Meta Command - by Gerald Lasser - 2015-10-21, 11:59
Re: Slope Meta Command - by Roland Melkert - 2015-10-21, 16:49
Re: Slope Meta Command - by Travis Cobbs - 2015-10-22, 4:21
Re: Slope Meta Command - by Orion Pobursky - 2015-10-22, 4:48
Re: Slope Meta Command - by Gerald Lasser - 2015-10-22, 7:08
Re: Slope Meta Command - by Roland Melkert - 2015-10-22, 16:30
Re: Slope Meta Command - by Michael Horvath - 2015-10-26, 0:03
Re: Slope Meta Command - by Orion Pobursky - 2015-10-26, 4:20
Re: Slope Meta Command - by Roland Melkert - 2015-10-26, 19:10
Re: Slope Meta Command - by Ben Supnik - 2015-11-18, 1:58
Re: Slope Meta Command - by Roland Melkert - 2015-11-18, 20:45
Re: Slope Meta Command - by Orion Pobursky - 2015-11-19, 2:39
Re: Slope Meta Command - by Roland Melkert - 2015-11-19, 18:10
Re: Slope Meta Command - by Ben Supnik - 2015-11-20, 1:15
Re: Slope Meta Command - by Roland Melkert - 2015-11-20, 18:48
Re: Slope Meta Command - by Ben Supnik - 2015-11-25, 15:57
Re: Slope Meta Command - by Magnus Forsberg - 2015-11-19, 17:34
Re: Slope Meta Command - by Roland Melkert - 2015-11-19, 18:18

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)