Re: [clutter] 2.5D?

Hi;

On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 13:24 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe I'm even wrong about the extruded depth. Does
> > > clutter_actor_set_depth() set the z position of the object or the z
> > > dimension of the object?
> >
> > Z position. Maybe we should rename this and actually make depth a kind
> > of volume like prop (or drop it). Would that seem more logical ?
>
> I think so yes. It should at least be made clearer in the API
> documentation for that function.
>
> Is there any actual way to set an extruded depth then, or do actors now
> have zero depth?

So we spoke a bit about extending actor so they were effectively box
like volumes - though this wouldn't be to hard on the surface it has
some further reaching consequences which could take a bit of working
out. Thus its probably safest to punt until after 0.6.

If somebody really wants this, it would be possible to at least
prototype with a subclass of ClutterActor (this may even be the best
general solution). If someone does this please log in bugzilla.

Also note the docs for set_depth, do say;

"Sets the Z co-ordinate of self to depth. The units of which are
dependant on the perspective setup."

Which I think is pretty clear ?

> For instance, can I ever see anything on screen if I
> rotate a rectangle so only its edge is facing me?

Probably not if you rotate it right in the centre of the perspective at
least. I dont think this is a practical problem though.

> > I've
> > been a bit concerned about doing this in the past as having a set_z
> > could kind of make people think Clutter really is a general 3D engine
> > kind of thing.
>
> That also just needs to be stated clearly, I think. For the uninitiated
> it's not immediately clear that that's what all these iPhoneish UIs have
> in common.

I agree. Any ideas on what can be said here without being more confusing
appreciated (I usually say 2D with 3d effects, which is a bit sucky).

>
> > > Is this a limitation of OpenGL ES, or just a design decision for
> > > Clutter?
> > >
> >
> > Design decision. If you start really heavily supporting 3D its really
> > difficult to keep things simple as well as Im not heavily convinced that
> > full full 3D really buys you much UI wise beyond crazed 1980's
> > neuromancer style things
>
> I tend to agree. I just didn't see this strategy from the start.
>

Ok cool.

Many thanks;

  == Matthew

-- 
To unsubscribe send a mail to clutter+unsubscribe@o-hand.com