One of the things I love about maths is that there are often equivalent ways of expressing things. Each interpretation is valuable and their equivalency can offer new insights. I certainly wouldn’t want to forget what each of the basis vectors are, or the properties certain vectors can have. Depending on what you are accomplishing one interpretation might be more valuable than another, so there should be room for all – no suggestion of dumbing down.
Incidentally, I think my graph comparison is kind of under represented in standard graphics text.
[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Richard Fabian
Sent: 08 February 2008 09:44
To: Game Development Algorithms
Subject: Re: [Algorithms] Dummie Matrix math questions
whereas I'm not so sure
about thinking of it like this. I prefer to understand what the options are.
Saying that the matrix is "model2world" to me means it's a transform,
but I don't really think of matrices as being transforms. They are, but its a
side effect. For me, i visualize a matrix as being the three vectors of XYZ
modulation plus the 3D offset (the W=1 modulation). It certainly helps me come
up with more novel solutions to problems when i think of it in this way.
Its like sometimes its important to remember that a vector with a W of 1 is a position and one with a W of 0 is a vector.
Don't dumb it down. You lose out in the long run.
On Feb 7, 2008 9:01 PM, Will Vale <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Because of this I find it more helpful to think of my matrices as
> object2world, world2view, view2proj rather than just 'world', 'view' or
> 'proj' as the link between the two is relevant.
Amen to that - it makes the concatenations much more straightforward to
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
Just because the world is full of people that think just like you, doesn't mean the other ones can't be right.