Re: View port vs. view plane camera (was Re: Quesa - "Most Wanted" list)

[James W. W. <ja...@wr...>]

Edward K. Chew <ek...@lg...> wrote:

>Interesting!  I never thought of using the view port that way, but I
>guess it ought to work.  So let's say I want to get my "hand" tool
>working the way it once did.  Right now, I am moving the point of
>interest laterally, but this makes it look like I'm flying over the
>view below rather than moving around a large, static snapshot of it.
>
>Since you are confined within the 2 x 2 view port dimensions, I
>guess the only way to move away from the point of interest would be
>to shrink down the view port and offset it from (0,0).  The further
>away from the point of interest the user goes, the more you would
>have to shrink it.  At the same time, you would need to move the
>camera further out (and adjust hither and yon accordingly) to make
>up for having an ever-smaller portion of the view being rendered in
>the same-sized window pane.  Am I on the right track?

That isn't how I'd do it.  I'd set up my camera with a wide field of 
view, so that if the view port were at maximum, the camera could see 
everything.  Then I'd set the view port to be something smaller.  To 
pan around, I would then be sliding the view port, but not changing 
its size nor moving the camera.
-- 
   James W. Walker, ScriptPerfection Enterprises, Inc.
   <http://www.write-brain.com/>