|
 |
On 2/20/2018 7:07 AM, Kenneth wrote:
> Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>>
>> I attached the macros I created based on your code. However, it still
>> requires some labor on the user's part, since the camera could be
>> located anywhere, and not necessarily closest to the minimum extent or
>> farthest from the maximum extent, etc. There needs to be some way to
>> automatically determine which of the bounding box's 8 corners is the
>> closest and which is the farthest from the camera.
>>
>
> Hmm, an interesting thought.
>
> I've always assumed that finding vlength to the min_extent/max_extent
> bounding-box positions would never fail to return the proper spatial
> coordinates, regardless of what 'orientation' the object was in, relative to the
> vlength 'shoot-from' position. In other words (AFAIU) the object itself has
> 'set' bounding box corner values for the particular spatial location that it's
> at-- values relative to the origin at <0,0,0> (and which can naturally *change*
> depending on the object's rotation, for example-- i.e., the corners shift
> around.) And that there's always *some* set of distinct nearest-corner and
> farthest-corner values, *as referenced to the vlength shoot-from position*, not
> the origin. My assumption is that the vlength/min_extent/max_extent combination
> would *always* pick out what IT sees as the nearest corner and farthest corner,
> relative to itself (not relative to the <0,0,0> origin.)
>
> If I'm wrong about any of this, then my code concept is wrong as well, in a
> strangely subtle way.
>
> I do recall past discussions in 'the old days' that there were some problems
> with bounding boxes not being translated (rotated?) correctly when the object
> itself was; but that was fixed, ASAIK.
>
> The answer to all this may be buried in my #debug messages-- all the various
> values returned-- but it looks like some vector analysis is required to tease
> out an answer. Ugh.
>
>
Are you saying that it doesn't matter which corners I choose, as long as
the corners are opposite of each other? I don't quite understand.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
