|
 |
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraz net> wrote:
> And seriously.. Do you really #$@#@# think Pixar or anyone else hand
> codes a mess of scripts when defining the actions of their virtual
> characters, instead of, *at minimum*, storing them in a file, or more
> likely, using a database to store entire sets of data, for each
> character?
Do you have some concrete reference which indicates that what Pixar does
has something to do with your solution?
> I rather doubt they spend hours writing loops in script, so
> that you have to calculate the numbers, every damn time they generate a
> scene.
They don't use your solution either. What they have are expensive
graphical modellers where they can record things like skeletal
animations etc. with the mouse and with things like spinbuttons (and,
I assume, sometimes even writing some scripts too).
We don't have such a high-end modeller, so we have to do it basically
the same thing as OpenGL does: By coding.
What I don't understand is how your "solution" saves any writing.
You have to write all the transformations at some point. Your tables
do not change this fact.
> And it makes no sense at all
> to not have some method to apply the *entire* set of actions for a frame
> to a set of connected objects (such as a character), instead of writing
> code to specifically apply them, one at a time, to each *individual* sub
> object.
Your tables somehow magically remove the need to specify which
transformations are applied to which objects. I suppose that the renderer
will have a magical algorithm which reads your mind and uses that to
distribute the transformations among the objects.
> Once again, you don't actually give an example of what you think would
> work better, but just complain about how I don't have a clue what I am
> talking about and you have some *better* solution. Its getting real old.
And you refuse to give me a concrete example of how you suggest the user
could change your magical tables at each frame.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
