On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 23:55:34 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <k...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> I the rotation needs to apply to whatever the direction vector is: whether > that's implicitly (0,0,1) if we don't provide a separate direction vector or > whether it's the user provided direction vector, it would be odd to ignore > transforms if you set the vector. I see, so we compose the transforms on top of the direction vector. It's an option indeed. > If we don't provide a vector, we could always add it later if people ask for > it, so maybe it is better to leave it off if we aren't sure. > > The question then becomes how easy is it to modify the direction vector using > the node transforms? Yes, the ease of use is the issue I brought up initially with this approach. The rotation transforms are non-commutable, so it's going to be unintuitive for complex operations. A look-at method could be very useful not only in this case, but for any node in a 3D scene (or even 2D). Do you think that this is a worthy addition? ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/334
