Ferdinand,

Since I don't know your concrete constraints it's impossible for me to
answer a question like "what is more sensible". However, methinks that
putting "some effort" into fixing Wonderland's lights is a lot less work
than trying to extract "just the 3D engine" from Croquet - this may very
well turn out to be impossible and I don't think any of the Croqueteers is
even going to try (what would be the point?).

Cheers,
  - Andreas

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ferdinand Strixner" <strixner at web.de>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 4:41 PM
Subject: enhancements to wonderland and B3D sensible?


> Hi,
>
> I'm (very likely) going to use squeak and wonderland as basis for my
> diploma theses. One thing that is somewhat important for this project is
> lightning. In the last few days I investigated the current state of
> wonderland - among other things in that concern. With some minor fixes I
> was able to add all four light types (ambient, positional, directional,
> spotlight) to a wonderworld but they do not work as expected because at
> least directional lights and spotlights seem more like a placeholder
> than a final entity. So here is my question: Is it senisble to put much
> effort into getting these advanced light types to work in wonderland/B3D
> if they are obsolete anyway when the new rendering engine gets released
> as part of croquet? Whouldn't it be more feasable to isolate the 3D
> engine part of croquet and make a SqueakMap package out of it in order
> to be able to use it in sqeak until the hole croquet system becomes
> available?
>
> Greetings,
>
> Ferdinand
>
>