|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Chris Huff <chr### [at] yahoo com> writes:
> In article <qqm### [at] schlatt fmi uni-konstanz de>, Thomas
> Willhalm <tho### [at] willhalm de> wrote:
>
> > IMHO it would be more "clean" to introduce a way to invert a
> > transformation.
> > As far as I know, the inverse matrix is already calculated internally.
> > (The struct TRANSFORM has the two members "matrix" and "inverse".)
> > So, the implementation should be easy.
> >
> > Then you would get the desired effect like this:
> >
> > #declare Trans = transform { translate .. rotate .... }
> > #declare InvTrans = transform { invert_transform Trans }
> > object { ... texture { ... transform{InvTrans} } transform {Trans} }
>
> While I agree that something like this would be useful(as a matter of
> fact, I have been considering it for my next project),
:-)
> I don't see how
> it helps in pretextured objects. If your example is used, you don't even
> need inverse_transform, you could write it like this:
You're right. Perhaps I should use more pretextured objects, since I didn't
really understand the problem...
Thomas
--
http://thomas.willhalm.de/ (includes pgp key)
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |