XML and Instancing

suvakas · Post by **suvakas** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:33 am

j_07 wrote:And I guess Ono has serious reasons for implementing the instancing function as given - but this belongs to indigos internal code structure which I don't have any idea of.

I don't get it what's wrong with instancing as it is now

It's extremely logical

Suvakas

CTZn · Post by **CTZn** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:47 am

Back to the topic, what is the actual basic code for instancing please ? Could someone post that ?

Thanks

j_07 · Post by **j_07** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:19 am

You can an instance of an object by using the <model> element.

<model>
<rotation>
<matrix>
1 0 0 0 0 -1 0 1 0
</matrix>
</rotation>
<pos>0 0 0</pos>
<scale>1</scale>

<mesh_name>hand</mesh_name>
</model>

CTZn · Post by **CTZn** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:53 am

Thank you j_07, thats logical after all...

suvakas · Post by **suvakas** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:38 am

...and which is the same usual way we place every model into the scene

Instancing just means, that you don't have to define the geometry each time you use the same model in the scene. No special syntax for it or anything.

Suvakas

j_07 · Post by **j_07** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:32 pm

I never said that the current implementation of instancing is not logical.
And you wouldn't need a "special syntax". It would be the same syntax as for the already implemented rotation matrix, except it would have four more numbers. That's all...

Let me give you an example:

<rotation>
<matrix>
1 0 0 0 0 -1 0 1 0
</matrix>
</rotation>
<pos>1 2 3</pos>
<scale>4</scale>

You could describe the above transformation as
<matrix>
4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 2 3 1
</matrix>

This includes individual scaling for x, y and z!

See what I meant?

Basically instancing data is meta-information generated by your exporter and is not meant to be hacked in by hand. It wouldn't make sense for more then ten instances, really.

Still this is just a proposal. Something I'd love to have as a feature.
I wouldn't mind to keep the current structure as an alternative anyways.

Kram1032 · Post by **Kram1032** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:17 am

I don't really get, what you mean, but:
Why can't be there available both?
Then, Indigo gets more flexible...
Also, those complicated tags, mentioned in an other thread, would be nice to have them in different versions:
<caughy_b_coeff>
<Caughy B Coefficient>
<cbc>
i.E. ...

suvakas · Post by **suvakas** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:00 am

Kram1032 wrote: Also, those complicated tags, mentioned in an other thread, would be nice to have them in different versions:
<caughy_b_coeff>
<Caughy B Coefficient>
<cbc>
i.E. ...

Why? To mess up the xml and make it more hard to read and follow?

Suvakas

Kram1032 · Post by **Kram1032** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:05 am

I mean, all the three tags for the same funtion...

<Caughy B Coefficient> <- "beautiful" (correct)
<caughy_b_coeff> <- standard
<cbc> <- fast and easy

XML and Instancing

Who is online