Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


yahastu

Member Since 25 Apr 2007
Offline Last Active Dec 26 2013 10:00 PM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: D3DX in Visual Studio 2010 on Windows 7...

26 December 2013 - 08:45 PM

Got it working.  The trick was modifying the list of semicolon delimitted items manually rather than via clicking on it and using the built-in path list editor.


In Topic: D3DX in Visual Studio 2010 on Windows 7...

26 December 2013 - 11:12 AM

You can probably resolve this if you include the absolute path to both the D3DX header and library files (as a project's "Additional Dependencies").

 

#include <C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft DirectX SDK (June 2010)\Include\d3dx11.h>

I tried adding the paths to "Configuration Properties => C/C++ => General => Additional Include directories" and "Configuration Properties => Linker => General => Additional Library directories" (in addition to the Microsoft.Cpp.Win32.user properties), and also changed the include files to specify the full-path location to the D3DX headers as in your example, but there is no change.

Perhaps the problem lies with the fact that I cannot use an absolute path to specify the library name -- eg, in "#pragma comment (lib, "d3d11.lib")" and so, it may continue to look for the library in the Windows 7 sdk first....

It seems like this would be a problem for all Windows 7 users that attempt to use DirectX...there must be a common resolution


In Topic: Intersection between polynomial curve and parametric line

30 May 2013 - 02:16 PM

Thanks for your reply Alvaro.  If I can rearrange the nasty equation into a polynomial in t, then yes I can easily find the roots of it.  The difficulty is in automatically calculating the coefficients of this polynomial, given that it is a summation of terms such as "a_N*(a_x+b_x*t)^N" which would effect the coefficients for ALL terms less than N.

I think that implicitizing the equation might just come down to constructing an appropriate matrix and taking the determinant, after which point I'd have two parametric equations with two unknown parameters, should should be solvable...so I'm not sure which approach is actually easier


In Topic: Geometry triangle problem

10 March 2012 - 09:32 PM

Thanks both of you. jjd, your approach of converting into vectors is a good method to keep in mind for the future as well!

I was hoping to rearrange the solution in order to be able to compute the necessary value of Theta1 in order to achieve a given value of Theta2. However that is not possible via these solution methods. Do you think there is a closed form solution for the reverse problem?

In Topic: Intersecting two angular ranges

24 October 2011 - 11:17 AM

Quite right -- it's a rather fiddly problem although my general view is an arithmetic moduli solution will be cleaner in the end than any hull type solution (see below). I'll try one more time, if I were writing this for work etc I may just write a brute force test for all integer 4-tuples to ensure it is probably correct and easily debug failing cases, hopefully you get the idea of how the solution *might* be constructed.


This one works, gives the same output as my method on my unit tests but is obviously cleaner. Thanks for your help :)

PARTNERS