Tim Gould Wrote:There's plenty of good reasons to have non-obvious matrix transformations, especially on rects abd other surface prims.
But certainly checking against floor and ceil (to various precision) on sin and cos 15n would be a good start.
Tim
From a 3-d modeling background, building water-tight flat solids out of matrix transforms seems odd, but if the primitive is, well, a primitive, then I guess I can see why you'd do that. :-)
EDIT: it seems odd compared to what most 3-d programs do, but I cannot deny that if we know the location of our solid's corners precisely in cartesian space, the transform on the rect can specify an angled rectangle to fit that shape exactly, because the matrix is composed of scales and offsets per axis. The precision requirements might be higher than for raw vertices, but you guys have already addressed that!
I was thinking more specifically of 'rotational symmetry' - that is, for a rotationally symemtric part, whether the sub-part slice is modeled in 'strange' pie slices. This could be detected by the use of 'weird' rotations on sub-parts rather than primitives...
cheers
Ben