Difference between revisions of "Talk:Proposals/Unified Mesh Format"

From UFO:AI
(mAliasMesh_t)
Line 12: Line 12:
  
 
What about this? this was my approach (from egl afair) to unify the rendering - as we earlier used the raw model formats to render everything. --[[User:Mattn|Mattn]] 16:05, 30 November 2012 (SAST)
 
What about this? this was my approach (from egl afair) to unify the rendering - as we earlier used the raw model formats to render everything. --[[User:Mattn|Mattn]] 16:05, 30 November 2012 (SAST)
 +
 +
== AABB ==
 +
We have *two* classes named AABB in our project. Which one ? --[[User:Duke|Duke]] 21:59, 30 November 2012 (SAST)

Revision as of 19:59, 30 November 2012

I realize this is far beyond my expertise, but is there a reason that we're not looking to implement an existing, widely used and widely supported format? Are we talking here about creating our own format? Does that mean maintaining our own tools, import/export plugins, etc? Or am I missing something? --H-hour 02:37, 30 November 2012 (SAST)

In fact, this is about the internal representation of mesh data, not the storage (file) format (which I think Sandro would also like to unify, but that's a different matter).
--DarkRain 03:57, 30 November 2012 (SAST)

Naming: TextureCoordinate is way too long, […] What is better?

As far as I know, the compiled code has no names of variables. When you write the code you can use autocompleting and other tips, so readability and clearing of code is better than economy of symbols.


mAliasMesh_t

What about this? this was my approach (from egl afair) to unify the rendering - as we earlier used the raw model formats to render everything. --Mattn 16:05, 30 November 2012 (SAST)

AABB

We have *two* classes named AABB in our project. Which one ? --Duke 21:59, 30 November 2012 (SAST)