Comments on: Papervision 3D 2.0 Breaking Changes on Object yaw, roll, pitch

By: Alex

Alex — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:00:50 +0000

I have Papervision GW 2.0alpha and using localRotationX gives me an undefined property error in DisplayObject3D. Why is that ?

By: Тиран

Тиран — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:57:18 +0000

незнаю, мне всё нравится!

By: keith

keith — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:05:37 +0000

Thanks for taking my thoughts into consideration Tim! I think it will be great to have both for now.

By: Матрешкин

Матрешкин — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:29:56 +0000

Мне понравилось.

By: drawk

drawk — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:05:13 +0000

Hey Tim,

Wow that much backlash? I thought it was a decent change. Ah well give the people what they want I guess.

The new getters and setters are great for localRotation. I guess that makes people the most happy and supports all the current code out there. And yaw, pitch and roll are easy and are really helpers that mod those properties but don’t’ be afraid to do a breaking change to prevent bloat or legacy build up.

By: Tim Knip

Tim Knip — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:38:49 +0000

Hi all,

Due to much confusion we decided to revert back to yaw(), pitch() and roll() methods again.

Added are now new getter/setters: #localRotationX, #localRotationY and #localRotationZ

One has to understand this: #rotationX, #rotationY and #rotationZ are defining the *global* rotation of an object (they are Euler-angles). The (initial) orientation of the object in space.

pitch(), yaw(), roll(), #localRotationX/Y/Z however rotate the object *relative* to the rotation as set thru #rotationX, #rotationY and #rotationZ.

By: Alto

Alto — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:04:36 +0000

Let’s say there is a for loop:
for (var i:int = 0; i < 90; i++)
{
some3DObject.yaw = 1;
}
If the values are absolute…. does this mean that the object will not turn 90 degrees, but instead stays at 1? How is this different from rotationX Y and Z?

By: drawk

drawk — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 03:20:54 +0000

Hey keith,

Well you can now also get not just set. Before it was just a set method like yaw(amount). So really it is the same functionality just now you can get the values more easily.

Also for control clockwise vs counterclockwise you just do positive and negative values local to the object that you are manipulating.

Also, with the absolute vs relative situation this seems a bit easier as absolute as you know better where the values are at. It shouldn’t affect anyone too bad but just a more precise way to do things.

By: keith

keith — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 03:10:25 +0000

This sounds nice, but also leaves me a bit troubled. It seems like now if making relative transformations will be difficult – involving math. Can you explain a simple solution? Better yet, it would be great to have a way to make both absolute and relative. Maybe I am overanalyzing the problem – rotation is always confusing to me since it ‘loops’. e.g. How to control clockwise vs counter-clockwise rotation.