RE: slight OT: they want what we got!

Date : Wed, 2 May 2007 08:52:48 -0500 (CDT)
To : XSI(at)Softimage.COM
From : Joe Laffey <joe(at)laffey.tv>
Subject : RE: slight OT: they want what we got!
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Halfdan Ingvarsson wrote:

Polygon clusters already are a type of a meta-object (actually a sub-object is more apt).

The fun part starts when you have to consider overlapping clusters and visibility overrides on them. For example: Cluster A and B overlap. If you set cluster A to be non-visible (render/viewport), will it reveal the overlapped section covered by B?

How about an override stack per object? Then you could re-arrange the overrides, and they would be applied in a defined order. This makes it clear to the user which override would have precedence. It would also allow multiple conflicting overrides to be used, putting the finer grained overrides on top.


--
Joe Laffey                |       Visual Effects for Film and Video
LAFFEY Computer Imaging   |     -------------------------------------
St. Louis, MO             |       Show Reel http://LAFFEY.tv/?e05544
USA                       |     -------------------------------------
.                         |        -*- Digital Fusion Plugins -*-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail here will be rejected --> "Real Trap" <r_trap(at)laffeycomputer.com>
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi


Search the XSI List archives here or use the advanced search form to search across mailing lists. Searching help is available.
This site supposedly brought to you by Benjamin Grosser and the Imaging Technology Group.