Difference between revisions of "LlAddCameraView"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
::On that I agree. For the client side it could be an option to have it set from preferences (Use mirrors on/off). On the server side it can be optimised a lot. Not scalable? Maybe. (Nynia) | ::On that I agree. For the client side it could be an option to have it set from preferences (Use mirrors on/off). On the server side it can be optimised a lot. Not scalable? Maybe. (Nynia) | ||
:::Even if it looks like with modern | :::Even if it looks like with modern multitasking technologies it'd probably be doable, but not feasable. A feature like this is very "cool-toys" rather than being highly implicitly useful, as I result, I seriously doubt anyone'd spend any time implementing it. --[[User:Kanashio Resident|Kanashio Resident]] ([[User talk:Kanashio Resident|talk]]) 11:12, 12 July 2015 (PDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 11:12, 12 July 2015
This function creates a new camera view inworld or outworld, depending on the function arguments. Outworld - create a window in which you can look the other way, or keep an eye on your home. Inworld - create a square object which will be alligned and attached to another object. This square works like a tv-set, but the image is controlled by the newly created camera. This way it's possible to implement mirrors and reflecting surfaces.
Please comment on this idea. I think it can be implemented fully client side, so performance is not influenced much.
- It would have huge performance impacts, to render just one arbitrary view would double cpu, gpu & network requirements; it does not scale. -- Strife Onizuka 04:18, 26 July 2007 (PDT)
- On that I agree. For the client side it could be an option to have it set from preferences (Use mirrors on/off). On the server side it can be optimised a lot. Not scalable? Maybe. (Nynia)
- Even if it looks like with modern multitasking technologies it'd probably be doable, but not feasable. A feature like this is very "cool-toys" rather than being highly implicitly useful, as I result, I seriously doubt anyone'd spend any time implementing it. --Kanashio Resident (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2015 (PDT)