no but that is not the point I mean.
it is the object-oriented point of view from which it does not make sense that a chair is a child of a house.
to understand what I mean: http://home.comcast.net/~tom_forsyth/blog.wiki.html#%5B%5BScene%20Graphs%20-%20just%20say%20no%5D%5D
Scene Management
Quote:Original post by SneftelQuote:Original post by madRenEGadE
The main thing why I don't like a scene graph for a complete scene is that
in reality it does not make sense that a chair is a childobject of a house or so...
Really? If you move the house, do you expect the chairs to stay behind, floating in mid-air?
"Contains ____" isnt "is _____"
Quote:Original post by madRenEGadE
it is the object-oriented point of view from which it does not make sense that a chair is a child of a house.
It has little, if anything, to do with an "object-oriented point of view". The relationships are related to things that are integral to the rendering process--things like spatial frames of reference, render states etc... Structuring a scene graph based on object types would be ostensibly useless for this.
A scene graph is just a directed graph. It is a directed graph that is built to logically group geometry in a ways that improve rendering performance or simplify the process. If its purpose is anything else, it would be hard to justify calling it a "scene graph".
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
