Tom Melly wrote:

> I'm suprised - I'm trying to write a short newbie tutorial on object
> transformations, and one of my general rules is always create objects with a
> known point at <0,0,0>. Don't you lose track of where you objects are going
> to end up if you scale them? (or at least find it harder).

I completely agree. When I was a newbie, my permanent problem was that
I defined objects "directly" and always lost them after a few translates and
rotates.
I often had to "pile" transform statements to obtain a desired effect, and lost
a
lot of time looking for disappearing primitives (no VFAQ then !).
This problem was solved when I started creating them at <0,0,0>
and applied the transforms afterwards. I find it easier to apply textures too.
This can't be a general rule, though. Chain-like objects can be often created
more
easily using absolute coordinates (when using loops at least) since the end
points
of a primitive can be used as the starting points of the next.

G.

Post a reply to this message