Seems like the Triangle Node behaves a little strange in the current beta…
Cheers,
Sven
please regard the triangle node as a legacy node. it is not recommended to use it since there are more flexible nodes for dynamic meshes.
however: what is strange about it? do you have a patch which demonstrates the problems?
sebastian
Here you are.
It works in beta8.1…
Hmmm… Playing with the alpha value of the vertex colors, causes the vertices to move… ?!
Weird…
If it’s outdated, why is it still available then? Sorry, but I guess don’t get your strategy at this point… ;)
triangle_test.v4p (4.2 kB)
weird and not desirable. i will have a look at this.
however the strategy with the ex9 nodes is to replace the dx9 nodes to be able to combine different meshes with different drawing methods (effects). with the vertexbuffer and mesh nodes you’re able to specify more precisely what is stored in the mesh (you can use different texture coordinate sets for example, or no texture coordinates at all…). the triangle node was implemented a long time ago where those nodes didn’t exist. it was an early approach in the direction “dynamic meshes” and wasn’t tested some time. sorry for that.
But… doesn’t “to replace” mean, to delete one thing by putting something else in it’s place?
Well, if you would manage to automatically convert a triangle node from earlier versions into a mesh when opening a patch containing these nodes in v9.1 we wouldn’t need the triangle node anymore. A way to get rid of one of those “legacies”.
you’re right. we did this in some cases already. not with the triangle node since it is always some work to do those patches and get the converting right. i asume that this node is not much in use out there. so it wasn’t really necessary. did anybody use this node then and when? also it was difficult for this version to do the converting because of the new layering system but if some users want to have a legacy module i will do the job.
I think the main problem isn’t the fact that a few patches out there would need a modular version of this thing then, but the possibility that people approaching vvvv in the future might think it could be smart to work with those primitives first instead of learning to cope with dynamic meshes.
So I’d really advise to get rid of the whole “DX9 Division” as soon as possible.
So I’d really advise to get rid of the whole “DX9 Division” as soon as possible.
and what happens to the lovely, innocent quad (dx9) then? would really miss it… if dropping that sx9 stuff, there must be enough ff function shaders that can replace all the funtionality of the dx9 thing.
ele
Perhaps it’s a stupid question, but does the quad (its function, I mean) also come in other shapes? Like a disk? I would like to build a structure where disks in different colors, size, transparency, etc. move around the screen.
If the disks are not available, is it possible to use masks to do this?
earlabs you have differnet options here.
- use disk-texture with alpha on a quad. (the simplest one)
- use the segment (dx 9) node. (here the coloring is tricky because each segment of the circle gets colored)
- make a disk mesh with a 3d editor and load it into vvvv with xfile(ex 9 geometry load)
- patch an disk obejcts yourself with a) triangle or b) the dymamic mesh nodes. (i have somewhere such a disknode module around i did that a long time ago, im gona post it if you like it.
ele
and what happens to the lovely, innocent quad (dx9) then?
The Quad could be very easily replaced by a module built around a mesh as well.
But the question is (I guess the devs can tell that), if a modular quad consumes too much processing time to be a practicable replacement for its dx9 version.
ele, i’d appreciate that patch very much. I’m not yet familiar with the concept of a mesh. so it will be good tutorial in that respect as well. :)