Re: ADMIN: BOF SIGGRAPH Meeting Notes
Kevin Goldsmith ([email protected])
Mon, 1 Aug 1994 23:57:48 -0700
>>Mark posts the notes from the BOF; thanks much. Just a few comments...
>>
>>>Units of Scale & Orientation -
>>I'd suggest that the standard units be "real" ones; eg, meters. (Not that
>>I'm especially fond of the metric system, but it *is* easy to compute with.)
>>Pick some standard unit that relates well to Real Life...
>
>An easy way to do this is to specify in the specs a scaled unit of 1.0 for
>most things. The only time it needs to change is when the overall scale of
>something changes. This lends itself to easy code interpretations on the
>order of, 'ok, take generic chair at scale .5 or 2.0' and the
>renderer/browser takes care of it instead of coding and transporting a new
>object.
>
I don't think scaling everything on a basis of 1.0 wouldn't work
very well. What if I want the spinal tap option (a value of 1.1? :)). A
1.0, what does that mean? How large is that? Infinitely large? I think
that the units idea is good, or we could just settle on meters. It would
make things simpler, most of the world uses meters and that way there
wouldn't need to be extra scales if some one used feet, or something like
that.
>>>URL "Anchorage" -
>>This is definitely a good idea, and a point that might have been
>>overlooked. One more thing to bear in mind: when we do add behaviours,
>>we will probably need to add different URLs particular to specific
>>behaviours. We shouldn't do anything to close off this path...
>
I think using URLs for things that should be interactive (like
behaviors) won't work very well. Considering the network delays, it could
take quite a while to load up a behavior. This wouldn't work well. Maybe
it could be an option, but it really shouldn't be the only choice.
Kevin
[email protected] [email protected]
Unit Circle Home Page: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/unitcirc/unit_circle.html