Jim Wilson wrote:
Setting all the view offsets to 0 I was able to prove that the
position/rotation matrices generated on the model and the camera are
numerically identical. Here's a sample from the dump:
Oooh, but they're not! Take a really close look at the two position
vectors (the last
Andy Ross writes:
Oooh, but they're not! Take a really close look at the two position
vectors (the last row):
5064.624023 590.030945 -1211.297729 1.00
5064.621582 590.031433 -1211.296509 1.00
Ahh, good catch ...
These are the same up to 6 significant figures, but they differ
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Jim Wilson wrote:
Oooh, but they're not! Take a really close look at the two position
vectors (the last row):
5064.624023 590.030945 -1211.297729 1.00
5064.621582 590.031433 -1211.296509 1.00
Those are from two different iterations. I was
Jim Wilson wrote:
Those are from two different iterations. I was just proving that the
viewer and model were running on the same data, as it had been
suggested they were not earlier. The pairs within a single iteration
match (this is the same data I posted earlier):
Yes, but even between
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
It would be interesting to see if the current differences in the
values amount to a single bit difference or something larger. If they
are just a bit (literally) different from each other, then doing the
math in double precision might not help ... if the double
Erik Hofman writes:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
It would be interesting to see if the current differences in the
values amount to a single bit difference or something larger. If they
are just a bit (literally) different from each other, then doing the
math in double precision might not
