Bill DeWitt wrote:
> 
> There is probably a simple way to do this, but I end up doing it the
> hard way and I am getting tired of it...
> 
>     What I want to do is say "rotate y*30, x*60, z*90"
> 
>     Instead I write
>     rotate y*30
>     rotate <60,0,90>
> 
>     I made a sloppy macro that does it but it takes just about as much
> typing to #include it and then do rotmac( y,30,x,60,z,90)
> 
>     Surely there is a better way. Am I missing something obvious?

No.

-- 
ICQ: 46085459

Post a reply to this message

"John VanSickle" <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote :
> >
> >     Surely there is a better way. Am I missing something obvious?
>
> No.

    I would prefer a different answer if you don't mind.

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote:
:> >     Surely there is a better way. Am I missing something obvious?
:>
:> No.

:     I would prefer a different answer if you don't mind.

  If there isn't any other answer, what can we do about it?

-- 
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}//                     - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt wrote:
> 
> "John VanSickle" <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote :
> > >
> > >     Surely there is a better way. Am I missing something obvious?
> >
> > No.
> 
>     I would prefer a different answer if you don't mind.

But "yes" would have been wrong.

Seriously, rotating around x, then y, and then z is an arbitrary
ordering, but is convenient enough for most projects, and the
modelling language was written to reflect that.  Your project is
different (mine often are, too), so you have to do things slightly
differently.

-- 
ICQ: 46085459

Post a reply to this message

"John VanSickle" <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3BF6184F.2328BAD6@hotmail.com...
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >
> > "John VanSickle" <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote :
> > > >
> > > >     Surely there is a better way. Am I missing something obvious?
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> >     I would prefer a different answer if you don't mind.
>
> But "yes" would have been wrong.

    New thought. Six macros xyz(,,), xzy(,,), yxz(,,), yzx(,,), zxy(,,), and
zyx(,,) (the first one is included for consistency)

    After I make them, I will post them if they are not obvious to everyone.

Post a reply to this message

"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote :
>
>     New thought. Six macros xyz(,,), xzy(,,), yxz(,,), yzx(,,), zxy(,,),
and
> zyx(,,) (the first one is included for consistency)

    Eh... maybe if I got used to them, right now they just seem
counter-intuitive. I keep wanting to type the degrees in as xyz, and I tried
making the macros that way (zxy(x,y,z)), but then it seemed even wronger. So
I made them zxy(z,x,y) and that keeps me remembering that I am re-ordering
the rotations... but I keep accidentally typing them xyz.

    Probably a personal problem...

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt wrote:
> 
> "Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote :
> >
> >     New thought. Six macros xyz(,,), xzy(,,), yxz(,,), yzx(,,), zxy(,,),
> and
> > zyx(,,) (the first one is included for consistency)
> 
>     Eh... maybe if I got used to them, right now they just seem
> counter-intuitive. I keep wanting to type the degrees in as xyz, and I tried
> making the macros that way (zxy(x,y,z)), but then it seemed even wronger. So
> I made them zxy(z,x,y) and that keeps me remembering that I am re-ordering
> the rotations... but I keep accidentally typing them xyz.
> 
>     Probably a personal problem...

Perhaps you are merely over complicating things.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote :
>
> Perhaps you are merely over complicating things.

    Merely over-complicating... is that an oxymoron?

    One of the best things about POV-Ray, as I am sure you know, is that by
being very complicated once, you can make things very easy more often. I
think, after using it most of the morning, that using (for instance)
zxy(z,x,y) is going to be easier once I get used to it. the thing to do is
to use xyz(x,y,z) too, so I don't lose the new habit.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:49:02 -0500, "Bill DeWitt"
<bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote:

>There is probably a simple way to do this, but I end up doing it the hard
>way and I am getting tired of it...
>
>    What I want to do is say "rotate y*30, x*60, z*90"
>
>    Instead I write
>    rotate y*30
>    rotate <60,0,90>
>
>    I made a sloppy macro that does it but it takes just about as much
>typing to #include it and then do rotmac( y,30,x,60,z,90)
>
>    Surely there is a better way. Am I missing something obvious?
>
>


I'm not sure if I understand the problem but I will post anyway and
hope it helps.  Here is a macro which takes three vectors and
rotates them in the order they are given:


  #macro rot_3(v1, v2, v3)
    rotate v1
    rotate v2
    rotate v3
  #end


To see the usefulness of that macro, let us show a sample call of
the macro, using your sample rotations:

  rot_3(y*30, x*60, z*90)


This saves a little typing.  Is that what you were thinking of?


Pete

Post a reply to this message

"nospam" <Pet### [at] nymaliasnetalmost> wrote :
>
>   rot_3(y*30, x*60, z*90)

    It's handy, and I went through it on my way to the more simple
xzy(x,z,y) type formula. I liked it in that it mad it very clear what you
were doing when you typed in the values, but still didn't like having to
type x*30 instead of just 30

Post a reply to this message