glTF
glTF copied to clipboard
KhronosGroup
INTEL_lights_sunsky: a procedural sun-sky model as environmental light source
Procedural sun-sky models are a wide-spread and flexible tools to provide natural illumination to scenes and objects or commercial products, complementing point lights (KHR_lights_punctual) and image-based environment maps (https://github.com/KhronosGroup/glTF/pull/1956).
There has been no feedback on this since Jun. I support this extension, and it is critical to some of our customers. Am I able to approve the "review" as a vendor extension without further discussion?
To move this further, the PR needs JSON schemas for the extension objects.
- /cc https://github.com/KhronosGroup/glTF/issues/1970
I feel it would be useful to publish some visibility into what to expect when opening a PR for a {vendor, multi-vendor, or KHR} extension. There should be nothing blocking the authoring vendor from using their own vendor extension, with or without review. I assume the review process exists to ensure quality and consistency of documents published under the Khronos repository, as well as to offer technical feedback (if desired by the vendor).
To move this further, the PR needs JSON schemas for the extension objects.
JSON schemas are now included.
To move this further, the PR needs JSON schemas for the extension objects.
JSON schemas are now included.
Intel is still interested in merging this vendor extension.
I cannot say anything from the perspective of a possible implementation. From quickly skimming over the text and the schema, it looks "clean", but that's not a thorough review.
A few high-level comments:
- The role of the node that the light is attached to might have to be clarified. Specifically: How does the node transform affect the light? I remember that this always raised questions elsewhere - for punctual lights and other things (even cameras).
- I wonder whether something should be said about combining multiple lights. Maybe that's obvious or a non-issue, as in "Just perform the computations - the specification is not responsible for defining what 'makes sense', but only to offer all the options"...
- The text mentions some
horizonExtensionparameter. I wonder whether this should be part of the schema...?
