Thanks all! Mark Weyer actually used
the same approach as I did, but pointed
me to the specific place where I was
making a mistake: I somehow had the
impression that I could calculate one
angle, and then do some math (like -90
or +90) and get the correct angle,
but I always forgot about the angle inside
the triangle...

I know that this might be a complicated
approach (using matrix-transformations
or other techniques sometimes seem to
get results faster and more precise), but
there are always dozens of ways to achieve
something when using math, and I always
like the version which I can easily visualize
(and thus, easily modify).

Regards,
Tim

-- 
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: no_lights (@) digitaltwilight.de



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 18.09.2003

Post a reply to this message