Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add and impl Primitives #10580
Add and impl Primitives #10580
Changes from all commits
3c439a1
4c79096
5e12cc9
e976114
5200e06
926c2df
235b473
2efd563
9d5cbc3
ca5f977
5bf8491
5e93e79
9422276
c543697
05d488f
da80164
5340e96
cf2b44e
0550f30
5b7e525
fce6f02
2bc9c0c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As @NiseVoid suggested (#10580 (comment)), maybe we should mention where the origin of the cone should be so that different integrations have consistent representations?
If the options are the base and apex (tip), the base is more intuitive for me personally. I view cones like Wikipedia's description:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is also nice to have, but if we also want primitives to be used for rendering, a viewing frustum would be more useful. For rendering, it would be defined by an aspect-ratio, fov and the near and far planes, but maybe that's a bit too rendering-specific for primitives? More opinions on this would be useful.
If we add a viewing frustum though, it should probably be done in a separate PR since it'd touch on rendering code too and be a bit more controversial.
If we want to support different types of frusta, then perhaps a polygonal frustum with a regular polygon as a base could also be useful?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@superdump also briefly touched on this here: #10466 (comment)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yep, we should split rendering frustra into a different PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Rendering frustum most likely belongs in the bounding PR. Might be good to create some helper later to create a primitive shape you can render from the 6 plane representation (which is not exactly most convinient way to render them)