Wudan Posted March 12, 2003 Author Share Posted March 12, 2003 Cool. Then Quats should be able to fix that up ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Converting the system to Quats would be slightly useful but I don't think it's worth the effort if you're not creating a new engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wudan Posted March 14, 2003 Author Share Posted March 14, 2003 On the contrary, I'd say - it allows for the 'on-the-fly' rotations necessary to a realistic 3-d environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wudan Posted March 14, 2003 Author Share Posted March 14, 2003 New Feature to my little unnamed program - now it 'rips' the "Quat" info for a given frame and writes it to a file, essentially un-optimizing it, so now you can edit per bone. When you've altered your frame, you can use ASk's program to merge it back in, and it'll be re-optimized. Now to make it so you can actually edit the frame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 You can do 'on-the-fly' rotations with the Eular's system. It's just more complicated and has a slight problem with uhhh...equilivent rotational sets. (IE multiple sets of data can represent the same thing.) Sounds like you're making good progress on the program. I'm busy working on a way to make weapons fully hitable. The current problem is that you need a normal trace for the ghoul2 trace to work and the player bounding box doesn't extend all the way around the weapon. And, yes, I've already coded in linking all the weapons to the ghoul2 model (they aren't normally). I got an idea on how to fix the issue with a linked entity for the weapons (like the saber) but I haven't implimented it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wudan Posted March 16, 2003 Author Share Posted March 16, 2003 Eular == Bad Quaternions == Math of the Gods. At least, that's what I've learned so far. All anybody has said really, is that the Quaternion is really complex and it's really good for your 3d engine. There's other technical stuff and math, and long lists of equations. Basically, because we don't live in the world of the 19th century, and we have a better understanding of General Relativity, it turns out all the Geometry they taught us in High School was just Planar BS, that doesn't apply to real space, and real time. Apparently, if you try to fly a plane on a Eular System, you might as well jump off a bridge, because you'll get to your destination a whole lot quicker. (Although I distinctly remember hearing something about planes using Bernoli's curve to stay afloat, and not 3d mathematics...) Of course, I'm mostly joking, but only because I grow weary of the quaternion. It haunts my dreams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 bah, classic physics is backed from with tons of solid evidence. All this fancy quantuam physics crap isn't proveable and not to be trusted. You gotta go with what works, not what's the newest child on the block. Anyway, I understand Eular's. I don't understand this Quaternions stuff. Q3 already uses Quaternions. Unless there's a uber benifit to converting, I wouldn't go to the effort unless you're doing a total rewrite anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wudan Posted March 16, 2003 Author Share Posted March 16, 2003 Ok, so we drifted off topic. I'm talking about ANIMATIONS. They use Quats (actually, they use an different kind of struct, made up of one vec3_t and one vec4_t, for the quat and the xlat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wudan Posted March 16, 2003 Author Share Posted March 16, 2003 And no, as it turns out, your 'classic' physics is garbage. Didn't you study Relativity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Bah, all that fancy realitivity/quantum physics are only for extreme situations. If I'm only worried about real world appliable physics, classic will get 99% of the job done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wudan Posted March 17, 2003 Author Share Posted March 17, 2003 Lol. "Classic" ... Back to animations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodus Posted April 5, 2003 Share Posted April 5, 2003 Originally posted by razorace You'd have to be a badass coder to have a working/bug free app working in a month or two. Model rendering is complicated. glBegin(GL_POINTS); glVertex3f(0, 1, 2); glEnd(); If I'm not mistaken... that draws a a point at (0, 1, 2). When you do glBegin and glEnd, it parses the list of vertices in between and then depending on the mode in glBegin() (I used GL_POINTS, but you could have GL_TRIANGLES, GL_QUADS, GL_LINES, etc.) it will draw the appropriate thing (points, quadrilaterals, lines, or plain old triangles). Look at this tutorial at QSG. Scroll down to the bit which starts 'While (1) {..." - it shows you how the thingy works. There's an explanation of GL stuff at http://www.cs.tulane.edu/www/graphics/doc/OpenGL-Man-Pages/ . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.