In article <4709fc49@news.povray.org>, war### [at] tagpovrayorg says...
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> > And I don't think you have *at all* addressed what I was getting at. Ho
w 
> > do you do something like IK, without either a) allowing an object like
 
> > reference system *which keeps track of* which order the transforms took
 
> > place in, such that if you move something, then rotate it, you don't 
> > want to later just rotate it, and assume its going to produce the same
 
> > result, or b) limiting the types of transforms that *are* possible to a
n 
> > already parsed object, or c) reparsing every damn thing in the script,
 
> > so you can recalculate just what the heck the object is described doing
 
> > *in that frame*?
> 
>   You don't need to reparse the entire object if you simply want to apply
> some new transformations to it. What you do is to reset its transformatio
n
> matrix and apply the new transformations to it. That's it.
> 
>   If what you are doing requires remembering and applying a set of
> transformations in order, you can simply create an array or whatever
> with these transformations, or whatever you like. However, that's
> completely irrelevant from the point of view of the object itself.
> 
>   The only thing you have to be able to specify is whether a transformati
on
> is applied to the object only, the texture only, or both.
> 
>   You don't seem to understand how transformations work.
> 
I know damn well how they work. And you don't solve the problem by 
reverting things. How do you revert **only** to the Nth transform so 
that you change only that one? You are assuming, I think wrongly, that 
no combination of transforms can produce a situation where the result 
cannot be reset, then some arbitrary transform reapplied to make the one 
change needed. Worse, your assertion that all you need to do, if it is a 
problem, is keep every transform in some sort of array, then reapply 
them from that, is... What they frack do you think I have been saying? 
The only difference between your array and mine is that I separate 
"types" of transforms so you don't have to remember if the second 
translate is the 6th transform in the array, not the 5th. The point is 
to still track those transforms in an array of some type, so they can be 
reapplied, *if* you have to manage them that way. Your, "just make some 
separate transform array", just obfuscates what is going on, by 
separating the transforms from the object they effect, when they should, 
logically be considered "part" of the final object (especially if its a 
compound object and things like "how" the texture is applied is changed 
dependent on the position of those sub-objects in some way, as a result 
of those transforms).

I think you are badly missing my point, both in terms of what I mean and 
how any such system would end up looking from a user standpoint.

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message