One more question...
I got the normals working --- actualy Col got them working.
(I just have to figure out the reason for the 12.5 degrees error, but that can be done later).
Now, the next step would be assigning indices to the normals, instead of applying rotations to the normals, I would like to be able to add the angles, then after that, find out which normal index to use, which would ultimately give me the normal itself (pre-stored, in a table).
There will be 144 unique normal indices, despite only 114 of them will actualy have unique normals assigned to them, but that is another story :^).
From those 114 diferent shades, only (up to) half of them can be seen at any given time.
That´s 57 different light gradients.
But, again, remember that those will be represented by (up to) 72 (= half of 144) unique normal indices.
Now, I am not *that smart*, so I am sure someone did that before.
Why do I want to do that?
Because I am working with hierarchyc models.
And, as you guys know, when you rotate a component, you must apply that rotation to all of its child components.
And you must do that recursively, untill you get to the bottom component;
For instance:
When move the shoulder, you must rotate it.
Then, you must rotate the elbow by the same angles.
Then you must go down piece by piece in the hierarchy.
Things get worse, when you get to the hand.
That´s because you will have to apply that same rotation to the first bone of each finger.
Then, apply it to every second bone, and the third bone (except for the thumb, of course).
The question is:
If instead of using the normals, I use the normal indices, which could be expressed as (alpha, betha), wouldn´t it be just a matter of adding the angles and, once you do that, get the correct normal index ?
You guys following me?
Is this totally wrong?
Thanks,
Rui Barbosa Jr.
I got the normals working --- actualy Col got them working.
(I just have to figure out the reason for the 12.5 degrees error, but that can be done later).
Now, the next step would be assigning indices to the normals, instead of applying rotations to the normals, I would like to be able to add the angles, then after that, find out which normal index to use, which would ultimately give me the normal itself (pre-stored, in a table).
There will be 144 unique normal indices, despite only 114 of them will actualy have unique normals assigned to them, but that is another story :^).
From those 114 diferent shades, only (up to) half of them can be seen at any given time.
That´s 57 different light gradients.
But, again, remember that those will be represented by (up to) 72 (= half of 144) unique normal indices.
Now, I am not *that smart*, so I am sure someone did that before.
Why do I want to do that?
Because I am working with hierarchyc models.
And, as you guys know, when you rotate a component, you must apply that rotation to all of its child components.
And you must do that recursively, untill you get to the bottom component;
For instance:
When move the shoulder, you must rotate it.
Then, you must rotate the elbow by the same angles.
Then you must go down piece by piece in the hierarchy.
Things get worse, when you get to the hand.
That´s because you will have to apply that same rotation to the first bone of each finger.
Then, apply it to every second bone, and the third bone (except for the thumb, of course).
The question is:
If instead of using the normals, I use the normal indices, which could be expressed as (alpha, betha), wouldn´t it be just a matter of adding the angles and, once you do that, get the correct normal index ?
You guys following me?
Is this totally wrong?
Thanks,
Rui Barbosa Jr.