Christopher James Huff wrote:
> 
> In article <3C74BB1F.D2267C56@atosorigin.com>,

> 
> > I still think that a tesselated object is just an object,
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > and that deformation of mesh are still another object whose parameter
> > is an input mesh and some additional parameters.
> 
> Hmm? Are you talking about some sort of "deform" object that takes a
> mesh as input? That might be what was wrong with my approach, I was
> attempting to deform a mesh, with a syntax more like transformations.
> 

Yes.
 
> > Last, I do not believe that transformation of mesh are similar to blob
> > component:
> >  the order in which the transformation are made usually is important.
> >  So adding a 'tesselation block' would means to have something similar to
> > layered texture, which would just prouve to be counter-productive for mesh
> > transformation in the current state of the code.
> 
> I don't understand...what do blobs have to do with this? Did I miss
> something?

Just my mind wandering about the possible 'tesselation' block 
(which is a bad idea, IMNSHO, at least with my current code).
Order in blob is irrelevant, whereas order of transformation is important,
even if the rotate/scale/translate can all be summarized in one single
matrix, but for transformation of mesh there is no possible summarisation, and
order is still important.

I should probably not have mentionned the blob.


-- 
Non Sine Numine
http://grimbert.cjb.net/
Puis, s'il advient d'un peu triompher, par hasard,

Post a reply to this message