Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> I thought 
> about it, and it just won't work, not without having to add a command 
> word to every level of a compound object you want to use it on, which is 
> imho damn stupid, if there is a better way.

  Exactly how is your idea going to alleviate any such problem?

  What if someone doesn't *want* to use any transformation arrays but
something else? Why would you force him to use a transformation array
when there's no need to?

  I'm tired of repeating myself this is going nowhere.

> Your idea, that you explicitly tell it to apply a transform (or even 
> a table of them) every damn time is programically complex,

  How exactly is your way better? There must be some way of changing
those transformations if you need to. Your "solution" only adds one
extra layer of complexity to the whole thing, a layer which doesn't
need to be there.

  Your solution:

  1) At the beginning initializes the array with some values.
  2) At each frame runs some commands which change the array.

  The generally used solution for this:

  1) Applies the transformations at each frame.

  Your "solution" has two distinct steps, the general solution has only
one.

  You seem to somehow think that running the same commands again and
again at each frame somehow adds to the complexity. Why you seem to
think like this, I don't know.

  Does a loop become more complex if it's run 10 times instead of 5?
Is it more difficult to write? Does it require more work to write?
Does it require more thinking?

  Basically what you are saying is exactly that: Since the loop is run
n times, it's more complicated to write and to understand.

  Moreover, your solution doesn't at all solve the problem of how to
apply transformations to sub-objects in an existing compound object.
The problem is still there regardless of your array solution. You have
to somehow be able to reference the subobject when you want to change
its transformations or apply new ones to it. There must still be a way
of saying "apply this transformation to this subobject" regardless of
any transformation arrays. Your arrays don't make this any easier.

  Your array solution is simply unnecessary. Given that you must be able
to change the transformations of any object at any frame, an array of
transformations doesn't bring any help implementing this. You must still
be able to run some commands which change those transformations.

  If you answer the question "how exactly would you change the
transformations of a specific object at each frame?" then the answer
to that question is exactly the reason why your arrays are unnecessary.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message