Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Interested in a FREE copy of HTML5 game maker Construct 2?

We'll be giving away three Personal Edition licences in next Tuesday's GDNet Direct email newsletter!

Sign up from the right-hand sidebar on our homepage and read Tuesday's newsletter for details!


We're also offering banner ads on our site from just $5! 1. Details HERE. 2. GDNet+ Subscriptions HERE. 3. Ad upload HERE.


#ActualSteve_Segreto

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:16 PM

"in terms of X and Y the second cascade is 2x the width and height of the first cascade and is located 1 unit to the right and 2.25 units upwards. Using that, you could project using the first cascade matrix and then apply the appropriate offset and scale to get coordinates in terms of the second cascade."

I'm having a hard time understanding where those numbers come from and how I would obtain my sample coordinates from that.


I think he's just using those numbers from the example he drew. Not sure about the 2.25 units upward (seems like 0.75 units upward from the illustration). I *BELIEVE* the point of this example was to show that for subsequent cascades beyond the first, you could obtain the correct values by transforming with cascade 0's matrix and then applying a transform, rather than requiring N cascade matrix transforms.

#1Steve_Segreto

Posted 03 December 2012 - 03:16 PM

"in terms of X and Y the second cascade is 2x the width and height of the first cascade and is located 1 unit to the right and 2.25 units upwards. Using that, you could project using the first cascade matrix and then apply the appropriate offset and scale to get coordinates in terms of the second cascade."

I'm having a hard time understanding where those numbers come from and how I would obtain my sample coordinates from that.


I think he's just using those numbers from the example he drew. Not sure about the 2.25 units upward (seems like 0.75 units upward from the illustration). I *BELIEVE* the point of this example was to show that for subsequent cascades beyond the first, you could obtain the correct values my transforming with cascade 0's matrix and then applying a transform.

PARTNERS