[ODE] XML Formats

[erwin@erwincoumans.com]

X3D and COLLADA Physics are not competitors: they can (and will) benefit 
from collaboration. X3D is mostly targetting run-times, whereas COLLADA is 
mostly targetting authoring tools. 

If you want to have a light-weight XML physics import, I can recommend using 
TinyXML, for COLLADA Physics. For tools, I recommend COLLADA-DOM+libxml. It 
is more bloated, but during roundtrip (save/load cycle) no information is 
lost. 

I think it is good to have serialization of an XML format as integrated part 
of a physics engine. Havok, PhysX and Bullet all do this. I won't push in 
that direction for ODE, as my main focus is Bullet (and Bullet's COLLADA 
physics import sample can be trivially ported over to other physics 
engines). 

It's not just about the standard physics format, it is also about growing 
tools support and collaboration. 

Erwin 

 

Jon Watte (ODE) writes: 

> I mean that Collada supports game industry needs that X3D does not, 
> whereas X3D has features in it, designed in to capture semantics for 
> archival purposes, which are not in Collada. 
> 
> The difference is not that Collada is only for static geometry -- it's not. 
> 
> Cheers, 
> 
> 			/ h+ 
> 
> 
> Dave Grundgeiger wrote:
>> Jon Watte wrote:
>>> The stated goal of Collada is to allow interchange of assets between 
>>> different production tools, with a strong root in interactive games 
>>> production. In that regard, it's not entirely unlike X3D (being an 
>>> interchange format). However, in many other regards, it is very 
>>> different -- for example, being solely industry focused, without 
>>> necessarily worrying about repeatability 10 years down the line.
>> 
>> What do you mean by that last sentence? 
>> 
>> Dave 
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> ODE mailing list
> ODE at ode.org
> http://mooshika.org/mailman/listinfo/ode