Roland

Well. I have used try/catch for many many projects in commercial products, and they are real I can assure you

It depends on how Box (or its parent object) is designed. Its possible to design in such a way that you can use both methods box->SetPosition( Vec3(0,0,-2), false ) ; or box->SetPosition( 0,0,-2, false ) ; Thats is if the Entity object (the parent of Box) is designed with both type of SetPosition methods like this class Entity { public: void SetPosition( float x, float y, float z, bool b ) ; // New pos using floats void SetPosition( const Vec3& pos, bool b ) ; // New pos using Vec3 }; But how the design will be in the end is up to Josh

try { Graphic* pGraphics=new Graphics(OpenGLGraphicsDriver(),1024,768,4); // assuming that Grahics will throw a GraphicsException on failure // code // code // code // code delete pGraphics ; } catch ( GraphicsException e ) { // Failed to initialze graphics }

-> is used when you are dealing with a variable that is a pointer to an object. . is used when you are dealing an object The * stands for 'pointer' Box box ; // box is an object ; Box* box ; // box is a pointer to a box object Of course you still have to know what you are dealing with, a Vec3 or a Vec4 ...

By the way... Have you guys seen this tool PInvoke Toolkit I use it frequently at work to create cs-code from C++-DLL's and it works like charm.

Just want to straighten this up. I have absolutely nothing against pointers (its not possible to make a program without them) and of course its the best thing to have the needed arguments in a constructor. This makes it impossible to create an object without supplying the needs for it. I do think this misunderstanding comes from the design of LEO, which I originally did as a thin wrapper of the C-API. My own originally design had no Create-methods. All was in the constructors, this was changed on request, I cant quite remember the actual arguments for this, but I have a feeling it was something like fear of pointers and having to delete the objects. But thats history. Just wanted to tell the story behind the Create's in LEO as an explanation of why it was done that way. I do think the understanding of C++ now has increased at Leadwerks and cant see why constructor arguments should be used. The great thing about the constructor arguments is that, if an object needs another object exist, the user is forced to give it in the constructor and does not even has the possibility of forget to give access to the other object. So ... pointers and constructor arguments is the way to go, and I have never stated anything else. Cheers Roland

Yes. Listen to Rick.. try and catch will handle those situation greatly

Haha Rick. Yes. That is exactly what I said. Nothing wrong with pointers. You cant live without them sometimes. So everything is Go.. This is a good sample of that.

That was exactly what I was thinking of.

Yes, agreed. Thats better. I would go even further but thats another story. A simple way to implement the C++ version would be to move the BMX-code into the LEO classes and we would have a new C++ version, compatible with the old LEO and also a bit more OOP oriented than the half-c++ that is suggested. But thats up to Josh and what he thinks is best for all. I just give my personal view of this, and now I'm not even into the programming stuff since I started learning 3D modeling

First impression .... Nice photos.. Your work is so good that it looks like street photos. Really impressing.

Beware of the memory consumption though. 3-4 millions of polys with Voxel is OK, but going over that limit things start to go veryyyyyy slow.

Well. Its easy enough to model in Voxels. The thing is to make the retopology to create a mesh. This has been made more and more easy, still it can be quite hard for complex models. Making such things as buildings or complex technical things with many hard surfaces is still better done using a traditional modeler. Normally you work with both your traditional modeler and 3DCoat together to get all stuff done. Making a complete building in 3DCoat may be possible but not wise, thats done far better with a normal modeler.

Exactly. This is how we do it at my work.

I guess you are talking about Auto-Retopo. The lines are suggestions or hints to the Auto-Retop logic, how you want your edgeloops. This may be critical for animation.

This last version of 3DCoat really makes it :lol: I'm selling my ZBrush license.

use this one instead

I can have a look at it

Nice that you found your pipeline. Just finding the right tools that suites your own Karma takes its time. I have been running like a rabbit between different tools for a long time and now I also have found my pipeline.

Okidoki

But then you are forcing users to have Boost installed.

Yes. That one looks cool. Didn't know about it. Thanks

For those who wants to use GCC and still have an nice open source IDE you can have a look at CodeBlocks

So GCC is roughly about 20 times faster than MSVC. Interesting result. I have not used the GCC compiler for some years but in old days GCC used to be slower. Things seems to have changed then.

Yes. This will be great.