-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 381
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 381
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Address confusion regarding XRFrameOfReference types #396
Comments
Thank you for bringing this us, @NellWaliczek . Reading through the current crop of frames of reference, I was confused how they're partially defined in terms of each other. For head-model, it says: For eye-level, it says: Does this mean that you need to make a head-model frame of reference before you make an eye-level frame of reference? |
As per conversation in the f2f, maybe we can simplify this by splitting the role of FOR types apart into ~3 different concerns:
|
#409) Addresses most of the confusion and concerns discussed at the Sept `18 F2F regarding tracking systems, the purpose of frames of references, and their relationship to coordinate systems. It also addresses issue #396, issue #389, issue #367, issue #355, and supersedes PR #358. This change does not address issue #384 and issue #403, though it will impact the approach to solving them as well. It's also worth pointing out that because we haven't officially agreed on whether or not XRAnchor should be part of the core of WebXR 1.0, there is relatively little reference the concept in this new document as of yet. The frame of reference types are now: `XRBoundedFrameOfReference`, `XRUnboundedFrameOfReference`, and `XRStationaryFrameOfReference`. The latter has three subtypes: `floor-level`, `eye-level`, and `position-disabled`. The unified rendering path is now supported even when an XR device is not present by allowing the `getDevicePose()` and `getInputPose()` to accept a null frame of reference.
Fixed by #409 |
A few weeks back, @toji and I discovered that we didn't have the same understanding of the definitions of the "eye-level", "stage", and "head-model" XRFrameOfReference types. We did a poll on one of the weekly calls and it sounded like there were a handful of others that had various interpretations as well.
This issue tracks the need to reach agreement the definitions of these types. It also covers clarifying the explainer/spec text to reflect the expected behaviors on various devices such as 3DOF/6DOF or those which might need to emulate the floor offset. It is also related to issue #389 filed by @Artyom17
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: