"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> "omniverse" <omn### [at] charternet> wrote:
>
> (Also: If you needed the macro to know where the object is - why would you be
> required to supply that [unknown location] as a Location() vector?)
>
> I made a small edit to the comments:
> // If a camera vector variable "Location" is defined, use automatic parameters
> for bounding box wire thickness

That's good, maybe I'm not the only one who thinks backward. Knew it must be
camera but jumped ahead of myself thinking of the object. :( Wasn't your macro,
was me doing the usual wrong thing.

> Thanks for giving this a spin.
> Let me know if you find any other improvements that could be made, or just
> things to make it nicer and more usable.
> It's sometimes hard to strike a balance between compactness and speed, and
> flexibility.
>
> Do you think a line from the origin to the object would be useful?  Or from the
> center of the screen to the object...?
> There could be testing to see if the center of the object lay inside the view
> frustum (given a user-supplied z-depth, or a default value) and then the macro
> would only draw such a line if the object were not visible.
> But the line might help if your object "disappeared" because it sneakily got
> placed behind a bigger object...

Definitely camera look_at origin, I would expect anyway, not the <0,0,0> origin.
Although a different singular line between those 2 points might be good for the
spatially challenged to keep visually oriented to a fixed "center".

Post a reply to this message