Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

We're offering banner ads on our site from just $5!

1. Details HERE. 2. GDNet+ Subscriptions HERE. 3. Ad upload HERE.


codecandy2k

Member Since 12 Apr 2013
Offline Last Active Apr 22 2013 11:04 AM

Topics I've Started

Matrix LookAt problem

12 April 2013 - 04:23 PM

So as a learning process I'm trying to create some matrix functions to use in place of the XNA Math functions in DirectX.

 

Right now I'm stuck on MatrixLookAtLH which would replace XMMatrixLookAtLH.

 

Here is my function:

 

 

inline void MatrixLookAt( Matrix4F& matrixOut, Vector3F& eye, Vector3F& at, Vector3F& up )
{
    Vector3F zAxis( at.x() - eye.x(), at.y() - eye.y(), at.z() - eye.z() );
    VectorNormalize( zAxis );

    Vector3F xAxis = VectorCrossProduct( up, zAxis );
    VectorNormalize( xAxis );

    Vector3F yAxis = VectorCrossProduct( zAxis, xAxis );
    VectorNormalize(yAxis);


    MatrixSetRow( matrixOut, 0, xAxis );
    MatrixSetRow( matrixOut, 1, yAxis );
    MatrixSetRow( matrixOut, 2, zAxis );

    Vector3F wAxis( -VectorDotProduct(xAxis,eye), -VectorDotProduct(yAxis,eye), -VectorDotProduct(zAxis,eye) );
    MatrixSetRow( matrixOut, 3, wAxis );
}


And here is some code that calls it and the XM function:

 

   XMVECTOR Eye = XMVectorSet( 0.0f, 3.0f, -6.0f, 0.0f );
    XMVECTOR At = XMVectorSet( 0.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f );
    XMVECTOR Up = XMVectorSet( 0.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f );

    Vector3F Eye2 = Vector3F(0.0f, 3.0f, -6.0f);
    Vector3F At2 = Vector3F(0.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f);
    Vector3F Up2 = Vector3F(0.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f);

    Matrix4F view;
    MatrixLookAt(view, Eye2, At2, Up2);

    XMMATRIX xmView = XMMatrixLookAtLH( Eye, At, Up );
 

 

The results of the functionis are simiar but not exact.


This is the matrix "xmView" after calling the XNA XMMatrixLookAtLH function:

 

1 0 0 0
0 0.94868326 -0.31622776 0
0 0.31622776  0.94868326 0
0 -0.94868326 6.6407828 1

 

 

And this is the matrix "view" after calling my MatrixLookAtLH function:

 

1 0 0 0

0 0.94868326 0.31622776 0
0 -0.31622776  0.94868326 0
0 -0.94868326 6.6407828 1
 

 

As you can see, [1][2] and [2][1] seem to be reversed in the output from my code and everything else is the same.

 

Is there something fundamental in my calculation that I'm doing wrong, or is it possible that the step that I am missing is just reversing those 2 values?

 

Thanks!


PARTNERS