KHR_materials_anisotropy should be exclusive vs unlit #2347
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This is present in every single material extension except for this one.
|
Good catch, it's indeed an oversight. Please add the SpecGloss exclusion as well. |
Also exclude specular glossiness extension.
|
Added |
lexaknyazev
approved these changes
Nov 16, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This exclusion note is present in every single material extension except for this one. I assume this is an omission since it's not clear why anisotropy specifically would be okay to mix with unlit and every other KHR_materials_ extension isn't.
Note that other material extensions also say it's not okay to mix them with
KHR_materials_pbrSpecularGlossiness. I did not add this exclusion for now to reduce the scope of the change but let me know if that is preferred here as well.If we don't end up adding this exclusion I feel like we should explicitly clarify the opposite.