 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi,
If I'm an old man who can't change his ways and insists on thinking in
coordinates where x points right, y forward and z up, is there a way to set
up the whole scene in those coordinates and then apply a single
transformation to the entire scene?
Thanks!
Dola
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Pahidla <dol### [at] yahoo com> wrote:
> If I'm an old man who can't change his ways and insists on thinking in
> coordinates where x points right, y forward and z up, is there a way to set
> up the whole scene in those coordinates and then apply a single
> transformation to the entire scene?
The coordinate system is a camera setting, and can be changed.
Setting the 'right' and 'up' vectors appropriately will make your
scene work with that coordinate system you want.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hi,
>
> If I'm an old man who can't change his ways and insists on thinking in
> coordinates where x points right, y forward and z up, is there a way to set
> up the whole scene in those coordinates and then apply a single
> transformation to the entire scene?
use a camera like this :
camera {right x*-4/3 sky z location <..> look_at <..>}
Don't forget you did that when using torii, height-fields, etc...
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fa3ien <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > If I'm an old man who can't change his ways and insists on thinking in
> > coordinates where x points right, y forward and z up, is there a way to set
> > up the whole scene in those coordinates and then apply a single
> > transformation to the entire scene?
>
> use a camera like this :
>
> camera {right x*-4/3 sky z location <..> look_at <..>}
>
> Don't forget you did that when using torii, height-fields, etc...
>
> Fabien.
Since I got to different responses, I was wondering if I could reach a
consensus. It seems like the first version really is just one command (if I
could see the actual command that would be great - I'm such a beginner, I
don't know what "set" means) while in the second way I still have to
remember other things.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 17.09.2007 23:20, Pahidla nous fit lire :
> Since I got to different responses, I was wondering if I could reach a
> consensus. It seems like the first version really is just one command (if I
> could see the actual command that would be great - I'm such a beginner, I
> don't know what "set" means) while in the second way I still have to
> remember other things.
Nop, Fabien & Warp agree!
Same solution.
--
The superior man understands what is right;
the inferior man understands what will sell.
-- Confucius
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> Le 17.09.2007 23:20, Pahidla nous fit lire :
>
> > Since I got to different responses, I was wondering if I could reach a
> > consensus. It seems like the first version really is just one command (if I
> > could see the actual command that would be great - I'm such a beginner, I
> > don't know what "set" means) while in the second way I still have to
> > remember other things.
>
> Nop, Fabien & Warp agree!
> Same solution.
>
>
> --
> The superior man understands what is right;
> the inferior man understands what will sell.
> -- Confucius
OK, now I see it. Thanks!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
