| |
In lugnet.cad, Damien Guichard wrote:
>
> Whatever loud users will scream for, what will eventually be
> delivered is step n°4 (an interpreted animation scripting language).
I think it would be wise to include a step 3.5:
We first need some means for saving animation data,
i.e. we need to design and agree upon a file format
for time-varying LDraw data.
Without that, we might end up with the situation that
is still crippling some aspects of the otherwise very
successful RenderMan graphics standard: the file format
for RenderMan input is static, and each frame is actually
a still image generated from other, non-standard and
often proprietary scene description formats.
I am not saying this is easy. I am saying, like you,
that this is hard. But it can be done, and I would
like to see it. The connection database that was
attempted (is that project still alive?) is a clear and
commendable step towards LDraw animation capabilities.
Stefan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Stefan Gustavson wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Damien Guichard wrote:
> >
> > Whatever loud users will scream for, what will eventually be
> > delivered is step n°4 (an interpreted animation scripting language).
>
> I think it would be wise to include a step 3.5:
> We first need some means for saving animation data,
> i.e. we need to design and agree upon a file format
> for time-varying LDraw data.
>
> Without that, we might end up with the situation that
> is still crippling some aspects of the otherwise very
> successful RenderMan graphics standard: the file format
> for RenderMan input is static, and each frame is actually
> a still image generated from other, non-standard and
> often proprietary scene description formats.
You mean a movement should be a continuous function rather than successives
position interpolations. If that's you mean then i agree. If not, can you be
more explicit?
Damien
web page: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/alphablock/
|
|
|
