the rotation was supposed to be a generic term/type or an abstraction from needing to know about quaternions, matrices, etc. and i believe they didn't use euler because of the potential confusion with rotation order.
you will find zero nodes in the 'rotation' category labeled with 'orientation'... a little bit confusing that the attribute is named 'orientation' for sure. but Brent Mcpherson, who is a rotation grand master, gave us lots of flexibility in this area. On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Andy Moorer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yeah kinda, but more generally. I had a situation where I had an array of > vectors which I was using to represent a "direction", and had occasion to > pull out a "rotate vector" node, and around that point I got irritated that > there were "rotations" and "orientations" which are being treated as > separate-but-interchangeable types and this made me realize that I clearly > wasn't following someone's logic. >
