Closed McNopper closed 7 years ago
@McNopper : see https://github.com/UX3D-nopper/glTF/pull/1 . By official repo, did you mean this repo here ?
Official repo is this one: https://github.com/KhronosGroup/glTF/
Process is like this: You make a fork, make changes and then do a pull request to the official, original one. If the changes are merged, the spec will be reviewed for ratification.
not sure i've seen this discussed in any thread, but is the 'technique' really needed for materials_common? With the correct default values, blinn, constant and lambert are all achievable by simply providing the appropriate values e.g. if you want 'constant' (baked) material effect, simply provide the emissiveFactor/texture values ; the other terms will multiply out to 0.
@McNopper - do you want us to fork this one or fork the master?
Please work on this one, as far as I know this is the latest one. Like the light extension, of course still some stuff to specify.
https://github.com/KhronosGroup/glTF/pull/1075 is https://github.com/UX3D-nopper/glTF/pull/1 against this repo.
there appear t be two KHR_common material definitions ongoing.
we have a working exporter but need to know which format to generate. Can i just double check - is this the latest : https://github.com/UX3D-nopper/glTF/tree/master_lights_blinnphong/extensions/Khronos/KHR_materials_cmnBlinnPhong
@stevepg the page you link to is the latest, yes. Viewers do not support this yet, and some spec discussion is ongoing, so it may be a bit early to implement that extension yet.
We currently have:
@McNopper Any objection to closing this issue, to avoid confusion?
@donmccurdy i have my own viewer and i need to get test data into it asap so i might need to punt on one of these. Personally i think cmnBlinnPhong is good enough for what we need - i think its better to have the material typed like this, instead of a generic _common with a type=blabla field.
I don't see much discussion on the specs to be honest ; there were questions a few weeks back, folks asked for input, there are pull requests waiting with that feedback.
Oops, #1075 is the one I meant to reference. There are more recent comments there. What I mean to say is that it's not necessarily decided yet whether KHR_materials_cmnBlinnPhong or KHR_materials_common will be ratified, more likely the first after some further changes, but it will only be one or the other.
I would advise against putting either into a publicly-available exporter without at least an "experimental" option to enable/disable the extension, to avoid circulation of invalid models. The Blender exporter does something along these lines now.
this is internal so i'm not worried about models getting out there. not yet. thanks for the pointer to the other thread. i'll head over there....
Closing, as discussed in several threads.
What is the current state of this extension? Which viewers support it and what format are they using? Thanks!
I know you saw this already @chipweinberger, but copying zellski's response (https://github.com/KhronosGroup/glTF/issues/1207#issuecomment-356788223) here for future readers:
There's been copious discussion about what to replace KHR_common_materials with for glTF 2.0, e.g. #947 and #1095, culminating most immediately in #1163.
For lights, specifically, there's #945
Using the pbrMetallicRoughness and pbrSpecularGlossiness material "syntax", I have adapted the common materials. Again here by example:
Like the current PBR materials, they extend the "base" materials. So e.g. emissive would be inherited.