In article <39A27BD2.C662EFED@erols.com>, John VanSickle 
<van### [at] erolscom> wrote:

> Most algorithms to decompose matrices begin by assuming that the 
> component transforms were done in a particular order.  This generally 
> works because the predominant habit among modellers is to scale 
> first, rotate second, and translate third.  The resulting matrix can 
> always be broken down into the original three transforms (with a 
> caveat in regards to rotation).

Ouch, I often rotate after translating or alternate rotation and 
scaling...I don't think this would work well. And how does it deal with 
things like rotations around an arbitrary axis? (which is a transform I 
have considered adding)
This does seem too unreliable, and the user could always override the 
macros to do what they want, like saving the transforms as they are 
applied.

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message