William Denniss will at tanksoftware.com
Fri Aug 12 20:26:56 MST 2005


On 08/08/2005, at 8:43 PM, John Donovan wrote:

>> Wouldn't that be very confusing? Regular meshes are always 0-based,
> Yes, I totally agree. It's just that the samples I've found (and the
> example in the spec), appear to start at 1. I'd much rather it was 0,

Starting at 0 is pretty standard, my vote would be to stick with that  
unless there was a compelling reason to do otherwise.

The spec doesn't actually specify which to start with.  If you are  
referring to this example:
                 <v x="0" y="1" z="1" />
                 <v x="1" y="2" z="2" />
                 <v x="2" y="0" z="1" />
                 <v x="0" y="1" z="2" />
                 <v x="2" y="2" z="1" />
                 <t ia="1" ib="2" ic="3" />
                 <t ia="2" ib="1" ic="4" />
                 <t ia="3" ib="2" ic="1" />

Then the example is misleading.  Just because the "1" index is  
referenced first doesn't mean there is no "0" index (there is, it's  
just not referenced).  Probably what makes it confusing is that I  
just pulled the sample out of the air.  Better would be to make the  
example so that it uses all vertices defined and actually makes  
something (a pyramid maybe).

>> (I haven't been following this issue, so it's likely already been
> discussed to death ...)
> Any discussion is good! I'm really just waiting for a reply from  
> William
> Denniss as he is The Man when it comes to XODE. There's nothing worse
> than several interpretations of the same spec.

Sorry!  I haven't been closely following this list.  If you ever have  
something urgent, please email me offlist as well  
(will at tanksoftware.com) so I know to check the list.



More information about the ODE mailing list