Re: pfLightPoint Color Binding?

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Simon Bennett (simonb++at++wormald.com.au)
Fri, 21 Apr 1995 10:34:55 +1000 (EST)


On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, `Bwana' Bob Buckley wrote:

> Hello Simon!

Hi Bob...

> On Apr 19, 1:10pm, Simon Bennett wrote:
> > Subject: Re: pfLightPoint Color Binding?
> > On Tue, 18 Apr 1995, `Bwana' Bob Buckley wrote:
> >
> > > How can I determine the color binding of a pfLightPoint?
> > Do you mean per vertex as opposed to overall?
> >
> As you say 'by perusing pfPrint', then there must be a way to query for the
> binding. I have no idea how they do it because when I query the using the wrong

That's what I figured... but I couldn't find a way to do it or find
anybody who could tell me!

> index (PFLP_OVERALL -vs- a whole number) I get a seg fault. We do use MultiGen
> 14.0 with the 14.1 loader. Marcus only binds per vertex when there are
> differing colors, tolerance dependent.

Yeh, if you get the wrong colour mode then your application is history.
I talked to Marcus about this and he gave me another cut of the loader
(14.1f) which *always* binds per vertex. Apparently PFLP_OVERALL colour
mode is dodgy anyway (I think I has mail to back this up too)

> > BTW - I've been led to believe that the entire pfLightpoint API is
> > changing in Performer 2.0 - something about the pfLightpoint Node being
> > scrapped. Instead you apply a pfLightPointState to a pfGeoSet....

> That's what I need they query capability for. To post convert a pfLightPoint to
> a pfGeoSet.

That sounds sensible. Do you know what pfLightPoint states are going to
do for us?

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
    Simon Bennett simonb++at++wormald.com.au
    Wormald Technology Advanced Systems Engineering Ph: +61 2 981 0611 (x512)

   Computer Terms: hardware - the part of a computer system that one can kick


New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:51:25 PDT

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.