Lothar Esser wrote:
> 
> Deaken wrote:
> 
> > Chris Howie wrote:
> > >
> > > rotate <0,clock,0>  // move clock into the desired axis
> >
> > That's the second time I've seen that particular rotate used in this
> > thread.  Well, the first one was "rotate clock * y".  In neither case was
> > there a Start_ or End_Clock mentioned.
> >
> > Am I a complete idiot for using "rotate <0, 360*clock, 0>", or did two
> > people make the same mistake?  Both of these options?  Neither?
> 
> rotate clock * y is an alternative to rotate <0,clock,0> as y = <0,1,0> .

Right.  I'm sorry, I was unclear in my question.  My point was not that the
individual x/y/z names are shorthands for the vectors, it was that some
people multiply by the clock, whereas I multiply by (the clock times 360). 
In fact, I had originally written "y*360*clock", but changed it for the sake
of clarity.

> rotate clock * 360  / n * y   //  where clock goes from 0 to n. 

The general form of what I use.  I am not good enough to generalize the
method and use clocks that are not simply 0-1.

Deaken

Post a reply to this message