Ron Parker wrote:

>
> Because the render engine doesn't actually have that information,
> perhaps?  For example, if you uniformly scale, translate, and
> rotate a sphere it will just modify the radius and the center
> and will keep the transform set to the identity.
>
> Okay, maybe it can have that information in some cases if it assumes the
> initial "position" (whatever that means) of the object was zero and the
> initial "orientation" was Y, but designing objects that way is just a
> guideline, not a requirement.
>
> In short, such a function would be impractical and fragile.
>

If I tried something like
#declare Head =
union    {
object{Nose translate -x*.5}
object{Ear translate <0,.2,-.45>}
object{Ear translate <0,.2,+.45>}
object{Eyes translate +y*.2}
rotate <0,45,20>
translate +y*3
}

I would expect that all parts would stay together.
And if I tried something like
camera{location 0 look_at -x rotate <0,45,20> translate +y*3}
I would expect that the camera would point to where
I had wanted it. I know from experience that you can even
scale a camera. It only effects location. The size of a camera is
not effected.
So why not put the camera on an object in a union?
Then I could do this
#declare VideoHead =
union{
object{Head}
camera{location 0 look_at -x translate -x*.51}
rotate <0,45,20> translate +y*3
}
Anything that I could do that would then change the
position and/or scale of object{VideoHead} would
also change the camera location.

All these things POV does for every object.
And for the camera. I thought it natural that
the camera, as an object, could be included in
a union{}.

Post a reply to this message