[osg-users] Looking for FBX models to test out our FBX plugin

Robert Osfield robert.osfield at gmail.com
Sat Mar 10 10:06:31 PST 2018

Hi All,

I have just checked in a refactor of the way that texturing is handled
in the FBX plugin:


The behaviour shouldn't be any different from before, it should do the
same thing, but with less code - 338 lines deleted vs 159 added,
whilst making the code a bit easier to maintain/add to/change
behaviours down the line.

I'm still no expert in FBX, and have only tested a few files so far,
so would appreciate those who use FBX in their own applications to
test out OSG master to make sure there isn't any regressions.

What instigated this refactor is a submission that added support for
another method for setting up texturing in FBX files that wasn't
supported in the original FBX plugin, the submission had to duplicate
lots of code to achieve this, on code where there was already a
massive amount of duplication.  Submissions that have to add a lot of
code to achieve a small amount of new functionality is a red flag to
me that the underlying code is badly implemented and is in need of
rewriting.  So the changes I've made today should make it far easier
to add this new functionality, or any other treatment of texturing
going forward.

Good programs undergo this type of evolution in the code, and as
programmers we need to be mindful of what code gets so unwieldy that
it become impractical to maintain it let alone improve it, so I'd
recommend users watch out for these "red flags" when working in their
own applications, or submissions to the OSG ;-)

Bad programs tend to have lots of code that has all these "red flags"
in them but they get ignored or worked around rather than fixed so you
end up with a code base that gets more and more and more unmanageable
as the years go by.


On 10 March 2018 at 01:17, Julien Valentin <julienvalentin51 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Robert
> I tested the two models with Software transform implementations in osganimationviewer and it worked quite well
> -The rig only test was successfull
> -The rig+morph test gives strange result : I suspect morphtarget arent yet well supported (no MorphGeometry outputed)
> It doesn't help a lot but still it 's  a feedback..:/
> robertosfield wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I'm currently looking to re-factor elements of the FBX plugin to make
>> it more cleaner and flexible but don't have many FBX models myself to
>> test things.  If you have models that you can share publically or
>> privately then I'd appreciate being able to add these to my sure any
>> changes I make don't cause any regressions.
>> For now my focus will be unifying the way that textures are read and
>> setup in the OSG's FBX plugin.  I've got a small window of time in
>> which to look at a few outstanding issues, so will do what I can, it
>> won't be a major re-factor of the FBX plugin.
>> Thanks in advance for any FBX models you can share.
>> Cheers,
>> Robert.
>> _______________________________________________
>> osg-users mailing list
>> http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
>>  ------------------
>> Post generated by Mail2Forum
> ------------------
> Read this topic online here:
> http://forum.openscenegraph.org/viewtopic.php?p=73063#73063
> _______________________________________________
> osg-users mailing list
> osg-users at lists.openscenegraph.org
> http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org

More information about the osg-users mailing list