Re: [clutter] 2.5D?

On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 22:36 +0000, Matthew Allum wrote:
> 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.

It wasn't a request. I just wanted to understand what clutter can do.

> 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 ?

It wasn't clear enough to me, hence the question. I would add an
explicit statement that it's not the depth dimension of the object
itself. But that's me.

> > 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).

Just make it clear that objects are 2D, with no depth, but that they
move in 3D space.

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