> The docs are wrong.

Ok.

> > I think at first it was designed to align Axis1 to Axis2.
>
> That's correct. Well, I didn't make the macro, but it seems quite
< obvious.

Yes - I once made a same macro - without matrices, but many
rotations - and that worked that way, too.

> > Reorient_Trans (x,x) driggers an error in the macro
>
> I've fixed this. However, Reorient_Trans (x,-x) still triggers an
< error, and there's no fix for that.

According to your following suggestion for the docs your can't rotate
the object around 180 degree, because the macro can't find the *one*
vector that's perpendicular (hmm, that's the word...) to axis1 and
axis2 - a whole plane is possible...

> > but it should (maybe) trigger some error, because Axis1
> > is not in 90 degree (don't know that word "opposite of
> > parallel" rigth now) with Axis2, or it should shear the
> > object.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean, but I don't see any problem with the
< macro. It sure isn't supposed to shear the object.

I just wanted to show the different behaviour between the docs and
what it actually does. And I tried to guess what it should do with
that first example - shearing or an error - if it worked according to
the docs.  - no problem, if the docs are wrong.

> > if only the docs are changed according to "this aligns
> > axis1 to axis2" there's a proplem, that this gives
> > infinite solutions
>
> "this aligns axis1 to axis2 by rotating the object around a vector
> perpendicular to both axis1 and axis2."
>

Well, that's nice.
But after reading those docs, I maybe would like to have a macro that
works exactly the way, the docs describe Reorient_Trans for now (low
priority - one can make a workaround, i think...).

Thank you

cukk

Post a reply to this message