You are right about that. I overlooked this fact. But rots still make the
program more readable than a bunch of rotation matrices filled up with
sines, cosines and floats that mean nothing unless you know the formulas
that created them. Actually, I used to do that and it looked very ugly.
Finally, I realised that rots can really help me out. Now I use 3 seperate
Identity Transforms. Then I apply one of the rots to each. This creates
for me the rotation matrices. Now I can multiply these with my object's
matrix and get it over with. So with 6 very simple (easy to read) lines, I
get all my rotations done. Of course, a couple more lines are necessary if
my object is not at the origin...
Paraskevas
--- Artur Biesiadowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paraskevas Orfanides wrote:
> >
> > You could use a matrix multiplication, but it essentially does the same
> > thing, and you will have to create rotation matrices. Using rotX,
> rotY,
> > and rotZ is much simpler and will make your program more readable. Why
> do
> > you not want to use them?
>
> I don't know about original poster, but rot methods are quite weak -
> they cancel each other. Generally all Tranform3D methods works by
> replacing values, not by multiplication.
>
> Artur
>
>
===========================================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the
> body
> of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email
> to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
