Is this correct?
Author
in a book, it is adopt matrix to interpolate.
like this way:
matrixinterpolate = scalar*(matrix - matrix2) + matrix;//scalar is 0 - 1
but I heard matrix interpolate not work .should be use quaternion to do.so which is correct?
The questions are:
Where do want to use this ?
...and what a kind of result do you expect ?
A matrix is a complex structure wich stores many informations like position, rotation and so on. Without any hint a common answer is´nt possible.
Where do want to use this ?
...and what a kind of result do you expect ?
A matrix is a complex structure wich stores many informations like position, rotation and so on. Without any hint a common answer is´nt possible.
Author
animation
I want smooth result.
other book,introduce another way:R S T
R quaternion rotate
S vector scale
T vector translate
I want smooth result.
other book,introduce another way:R S T
R quaternion rotate
S vector scale
T vector translate
Hmmm....for me its better to know what i wanna smooth exactly:
Ich you e.g. want to smooth the path, a object follows you better have
to use 2 vectors and use the the spline BEFORE you create a matrix
with it.
Or if you want a smooth rotation you have to think about using a sin-function
wich operates on a linear operator (0..pi/2) and use the result for
a matrix rotation.
The blind interpolation of a matrix can have unexpectable results, cause
you have to know wich matrix you want to smooth...
Ok ...my knowledge about quaternions is very small ...cause i did not understood them well...maybe there is a better way with quats ??
Ich you e.g. want to smooth the path, a object follows you better have
to use 2 vectors and use the the spline BEFORE you create a matrix
with it.
Or if you want a smooth rotation you have to think about using a sin-function
wich operates on a linear operator (0..pi/2) and use the result for
a matrix rotation.
The blind interpolation of a matrix can have unexpectable results, cause
you have to know wich matrix you want to smooth...
Ok ...my knowledge about quaternions is very small ...cause i did not understood them well...maybe there is a better way with quats ??
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
