On Apr 7, 2004, at 5:19 AM, zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
Zitiere James Tittle II tigital@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