|
Re: Rotating objects. (Wishlist)
Re: Rotating objects. // Wishlist
Jun 24, 1998, 5:09pm
*sees references to 45-90-45 triangles and shudders* If it wasn't in so
much mumbo-jumbo it probably would :) reads a bit like one of Byte's
run-on sentences :)
[View Quote]TechnoZeus wrote:
>
> I am cross posting this reply to the wishlist newsgroup because it contains
> something new that "could" revolutionize the idea of vertical rotation of
> objects.
>
> The idea of rotating around the X or Z axis has been talked about for quite
> some time now. I don't know if it's being worked on, but I do know certain
> complications that exist which could make it more difficult. Take for
> example the fact that many objects were not intended to be viewed from
> undernieth adn therefore have no texture mapping or incorrect texture
> mapping on the bottom. Another example is the fact that most objects in
> Active Worlds have been designed with their 3D center of rotation at the
> bottom, so vertical rotation (or rotation "into" the Y axis) would naturally
> happen around the object's base unless some fancy manipulation was done to
> cause it to rotate around it's vertical center.
>
> Anyway, the fact that you only mentioned a 90° rotation combined with the
> mention of not needing to create "all kinds of objects" as a result of such
> rotation brings to my mind an interesting idea which has to do with rotating
> objects ither than 90° and still being able to make them fit into place.
> Imagine a checkbox allowing the builder to specify that the object is to
> maintain it's "original" base and top positions after any rotation that
> leaves it with more than zero thickness in that direction. Now, imagine
> that there were similar checkboxes for the other two dimensions. Think of
> the possibilities. If you were to rotate a standard panel 45° with those
> boxes checked, it would automatically be stretched to fit across the
> diagonal formed by two such walls, or in other words, it's resultant X and Z
> size each being the original dimensions divided by the square root of 2,
> would be automatically multiplied by the square root of two because they
> were not zero (and not too close to zero). Anyone besides me think this
> makes any sense?
>
> TechnoZeus
>
> Edward Sumerfield wrote in message <35913394.0 at homer>...
|
--
Dthknight - dthknight at earthlink.net - ICQ: 2603180
Dthknight Central: AW 1875N 2225W
Home Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~dthknight/
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert
Einstein
|
