| |
On 27/08/05, Damien GUICHARD <damien.guichard@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
<snip>
> The Cons:
> * previous POV work would be not supported
> * advanced OCaml programming quickly ressembles academic math work
>
> But there would be no elistism: end-users and programmers would use the same
> language, just not at the same skill level. And let's be honest:
> 1. if you are fluent with vectors and matrices then you have math skills
> 2. anything really advanced quickly ressembles engineering or academic work
> 3. nothing prevents someone to build a GUI that outputs text as MLCad do
<snip>
First thing I should point out on this thread is that I *do* have
experience developing tool for professional animation software,
professional CAD software with animation and simulation systems, and I
have also been a game coder to boot.
Usability was a key issue - coders are coders, and designers/animator
rarely want to dive in to the low-level guts of a system. Those
wanting to animate here - should not have to either. If they want to
do advanced animations - then yes they do want to understand paths and
a little about splines, but they also be able to place a part at point
A in a gui, then go to the next keyframe and place it at point B - and
the software be able to handle something simple enough to interpolate
between those two keyframes. That should not require any scripting on
a users part, or a description language - it should be just point and
click.
Putting scriptable programming languages in is only okay if you want
to develop something only developers will use. If only programmers
can represent anything decent, then this format will be dismissed and
fall by the wayside as non-techies steer well clear. In Damiens last
but one paragraph, the majority of Lego builders are immediately
excluded.
We need a format that is accessible to everybody, and easy to use and
build GUIs for (someone has to code them). We also need an
intermediate format to save down the high level definition of an
animation - so it is easy to edit and change. Saving down a complex
script, or directly to a POV script may eliminate the ability to load
it back into the GUI/manipulation tool and make high level changes to
it. It should not be necessary for a non-techie potential Lego
animator to understand how to refactor POV code, or OCaml code, or any
other text based language for that matter.
I agree with Tim on using an XML format - which was actually what I
was alluding to with my post. I do not like extending LDraw with
comments either, that is merely a hack not a solution. The XML format
still also allows people to break out into embedded POV code if they
are so inclined. That also means advanced GUIs may be able to embed
POV code themselves for advanced tricks.
OrionRobots
--
http://orionrobots.co.uk - Build Robots
Online Castle Building RPG -
http://www.darkthrone.com/recruit.dt?uid=V30311I30328J30379X30379E30260X30277
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: My humble opinion about LDraw animation
|
| (...) ALthough I have no experience in this area, I have to completely agree with you here. If I wanted to make an animated film, the last thing I would want to do is script the whole thing. Maybe it was fine for games designers in days of CGA and (...) (19 years ago, 29-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
61 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
