[x3d-public] Please check file against standard.

[Michalis Kamburelis]

John,

I saw your bugreport on
https://github.com/castle-engine/castle-model-viewer/issues/110 ,
which I think relates here.

Sorry, I just didn't yet find time to investigate. But you are likely
correct :) Indeed, geometry nodes can be placed in
"BoundedPhysicsModel.geometry", "ParticleSystem.geometry". Our engine
(Castle Game Engine used by Castle Model Viewer) quite likely makes
spurious warnings about it. As we don't support the X3D physics nodes
functionality yet (we only parse them), it is possible we generate
some incorrect warnings and nobody noticed yet :)

Thank you for the bugreport, I hope to find time around the weekend to
investigate + fix. I will write in
https://github.com/castle-engine/castle-model-viewer/issues/110 .

Regards,
Michalis

wt., 15 lip 2025 o 16:46 John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com> napisał(a):
>
> Is this file standards compliant?  I think I have the right list.
>
> Check the various ParticleSystem component nodes where they have "geometry."  Does this mean that I need to provide a <Shape> node, or can I jjust provide <Sphere/>?
>
> Best viewed in Sunrize!
>
> Yes, I've used X3D-Edit and Castle Model Converter (CMC).  I really wonder if they are correct.
>
> If you think the file is wrong, please show me in the standard.  I don't know if a Shape node can stand in for geometry.  This might have major effect on things like the X3D JSON schema.
>
> Yes, I have recent versions of X3D-Edit and CMC.
>
> Thanks!
>
> John