[x3d-public] Representation Inspiration [was: Presentation from SVVR2017]

[Leonard Daly]

On 4/14/2017 11:53 AM, Michalis Kamburelis wrote:
> 2017-04-14 17:54 GMT+02:00 Leonard Daly <Leonard.Daly at realism.com>:
>> I just had an inspiration and would like to run it by people. This may have
>> been obvious to everyone else, but it's the first time I have thought of it
>> this way.
>> ...
>>
> In other words, every Shape also has additional fields "translation",
> "rotation", "scale"... (It was easier in my head to express it like
> this, but I think that this is equivalent to your idea?).

Yes it is!

> It's a handy shortcut in this case, and probably would be easy to
> implement (after all, it's the same as Transform with 1 single child
> Shape). But it has a price: we create a complicated node that has
> capabilities of both Shape and Transform, instead of splitting this
> functionality into 2 separate nodes (as we do now). So both
> specification, and the implementation, do become a little more
> complicated.

It does have implementation issues, especially for the way X3D people 
tend to think about things. The complexity occurs when you want to 
change things in the structure. It also gets really messy if you have a 
full-blown IndexFaceSet instead of a Cone.

> But if it's important for interoperability with other important 3D
> format, then I'm OK with it.

I think existing X3D encodings would be (round-trip) convertable to this 
format -- at least for a non-dynamic scene. Handling ROUTEs would get 
complicated.

-- 
*Leonard Daly*
3D Systems & Cloud Consultant
LA ACM SIGGRAPH Chair
President, Daly Realism - /Creating the Future/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20170414/4394ba15/attachment.html>