Dirk Reiners wrote: > Hi Anthony, > > On Mon, 2006-06-19 at 17:04 +0100, Anthony Steed wrote: >> I would just note that having purely local lights leads to a >> combinatorial expansion of the number of lights required in some scenes: >> each light needs to be copied in to sub-graphs where there is a >> non-identical overlap in scope (e.g. having two lights and three >> "targets" each with different influence under the lights requires you to >> set up at least two different copies of one of the lights so that you >> can inherit the correct influence down the graph). This is a difficult >> situation in any scene graph, but there are alternatives to scope by >> hierarchy. > > Hm, ok, that's a problem. We haven't seen a need for that kind of light > setup before, but I can see it being useful for skilled developers. I'll > have to think about a good way of managing that.
Just to toss an idea: I've previously worked with commercial scene graph which required the user to attach the light to each lit geometry. (The light-node's position was used as light position). Could that be folded into a "LightsChunk" (or whatever you may call it) that would keep a list of lights to be applied, this moving it into the material? This is not at all what you do today though. Regards, /Marcus _______________________________________________ Opensg-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-users
