2
$\begingroup$

We already have discussion on whether modelling software API questions are on topic. However, I've noticed an understanding that modelling itself is off topic:

In my opinion the question you linked is off-topic because it is about modeling, which afaik is not in the scope here.

Since this is a step beyond ruling out questions on using modelling software, I'd like to hear whether we want modelling in general to be part of our scope.

| |
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

I would say we should be careful with declaring something offhand off topic. There's just one tiny problem with lets see approach:

Namely, new users need to somehow know what the rules of thumb are. Since not many of these people do not write SIGGRAPH papers. That is not a very good measure. Don't get me wrong same scoping might be fine, but the scope needs to be explicitly laid out so that newbies can get it.

Otherwise we are going to have a constant flood of off topic questions in the future. So easy to understand rules of thumb are sorely needed.

To suggest something even un optimal i would go with something like:

"Question relating to general modeling topics are not in scope. Questions relating to geometric programming problems are within scope if a minimal working example can be provided and the execution environment is not overly exotic."

| |
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

I agree that the linked question is probably off-topic, but the reason why I think this is the case is that it's a toss up between "questions about software tools" and "primarily opinion-based".

My primary rule of thumb is that if you can publish a paper on it in SIGGRAPH or JCGT, it's on topic in cg.se. So to the extent that modelling is about algorithms, data structures, mathematics, and even physics (e.g. winged-edge vs half-edge, CSG operations on polygon meshes, discrete differential geometry, animation blending and interpolation, solving Hamilton-Jacobi equations on triangular meshes), modelling is on topic.

I don't know where to draw the line, and I suspect we'll know it when we see it. On APIs, I broadly agree with Qix's answer, but I can't help thinking that if questions about the subtleties of OpenGL are on topic, then questions about the subtleties of Collada are also on topic.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Clarification: when you say "if you can publish a paper on it in SIGGRAPH or JCGT", are you intending to imply that it should be near the cutting edge of research? Or do you also intend to include topics which were the subject of papers in SIGGRAPH back in the 70s? $\endgroup$ – Peter Taylor Sep 3 '15 at 14:17
  • $\begingroup$ It's a rule of thumb, so take it with the appropriate amount of NaCl. But I'm not talking about what constitutes cutting edge research, but what constitutes stuff that cg.se touches. So yes, I'd include anything from SIGGRAPH's history, Eurographics' history, Graphics Gems history, etc. One more thing, while I think about it: Don't forget that gamedev.se exists. $\endgroup$ – Pseudonym Sep 3 '15 at 23:33
  • $\begingroup$ Whether something is on topic on gamedev.SE should not affect whether it is on topic here. $\endgroup$ – trichoplax Sep 4 '15 at 10:21
  • $\begingroup$ Indeed, but it's a place where some off-topic questions could be redirected. $\endgroup$ – Pseudonym Sep 5 '15 at 1:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .