I think I solved the -180==180 problem for 99.9% of the time.
I still think the spec should mention what's expected in that situation though.
I also implemented spherical projection:
It uses even more 'hacks' to get rid of the polar problem, although it's still not perfect I think.
Also IMHO these kind of projections are NOT possible when you apply the current spec to the letter. Because the way the spec describes calculating the uv values will result in very weird things when using angles of >=180 degrees.
Personally I think the vertical one should be limited to <=180 in order to prevent weird situations. And secondly the vertical plane as described in the spec should rotate along with the current horizontal angle when calculating v
Or maybe we need multiple kinds of spherical modes. Namely the literal spec one, and two more variations focusing on ether horizontal of vertical dominance my above implementation being the horizontal one.
Thoughts?
I still think the spec should mention what's expected in that situation though.
I also implemented spherical projection:
It uses even more 'hacks' to get rid of the polar problem, although it's still not perfect I think.
Also IMHO these kind of projections are NOT possible when you apply the current spec to the letter. Because the way the spec describes calculating the uv values will result in very weird things when using angles of >=180 degrees.
Personally I think the vertical one should be limited to <=180 in order to prevent weird situations. And secondly the vertical plane as described in the spec should rotate along with the current horizontal angle when calculating v
Or maybe we need multiple kinds of spherical modes. Namely the literal spec one, and two more variations focusing on ether horizontal of vertical dominance my above implementation being the horizontal one.
Thoughts?