Re: Why does DEF do instancing?

Vassilis Bourdakis (absvb@bath.ac.uk)
Fri, 13 Oct 1995 15:24:50 +0000

Thomas Bornfleth wrote:
>
> But it isn't hard to do a workaround.
> Just put another Separator around the DEF node, in which you do a translation.
> So your example would look like:
>
> Separator {
> Transform { ... somewhere }
> DEF RedSphere Separator {
> Material {
> emissiveColor 1 0 0
> }
> sphere { }
> }
> }
>

The problem is that IMHO it is conseptually wrong! When you define
something you simply define it as far as I'm concerned. That is the
way autocad does it and other CAD s/w as well and it does make
sense.

It is also easier to deal with. I'm currently writing an ACAD to
IV or VRML translator and came across this error trying to
deal with blocks == DEFs and insertions == USE. Took some time to
figure that out...

Cheer

-- 
   --- --- ---- ---- ---- 
   Dr. Vassilis Bourdakis 	      ---- ---- ----- ----- 
   Tel +44 (0)1225 826475	      CASA, Bath University		      
   V.Bourdakis@bath.ac.uk	      http://fos.bath.ac.uk

  • Next message: Len Bullard: "RE: VRML Questions #3: The Crystal Ball"
  • Previous message: Robert A Schmitt: "Re: Q#3: Crystal Ball"
  • Maybe in reply to: Finn Aarup Nielsen: "Why does DEF do instancing?"
  • Next in thesad: Jeff Sonstein, M.A.: "Re: Why does DEF do instancing?"