Hi Guys , I was looking for Normal Face Vector in Lite and found none . I
tried to write my own . From my check It seems working ... But I would like
to get a confirmation from Math
experts here .
I used the tuvs to create 2 vectors on the Face plane, then did cross
product . Was that right ?
Here is the code:
var face:Face=sp.faces[45];
var v1:Vector3D=new Vector3D(face.t0,face.u0,face.v0);
var v2:Vector3D=new Vector3D(face.t1,face.u1,face.v1);
v1.normalize();
v1.normalize();
var normVect:Vector3D=new Vector3D();
normVect=v1.crossProduct(v2);
normVect.normalize();
So using the texture coordinates is a bit of an unorthodox approach. I
would take the cross product of two face edges and normalize that. Beyond
that, I am not sure why to are normalizing v1 twice (or even once, just skip
it). Also, that call to new Vector3D() when initializing normVect is
wasted, since it gets overwritten on the next line.
Also, after a quick glance at svn it seems like the Face class had a normal
at some point that is just commented out. Maybe try using that?
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Guys , I was looking for Normal Face Vector in Lite and found none . I
> tried to write my own . From my check It seems working ... But I would like
> to get a confirmation from Math
> experts here .
> I used the tuvs to create 2 vectors on the Face plane, then did cross
> product . Was that right ?
> Here is the code:
> var face:Face=sp.faces[45];
> var v1:Vector3D=new Vector3D(face.t0,face.u0,face.v0);
> var v2:Vector3D=new Vector3D(face.t1,face.u1,face.v1);
> v1.normalize();
> v1.normalize();
> var normVect:Vector3D=new Vector3D();
> normVect=v1.crossProduct(v2);
> normVect.normalize();
You are right , I just like to keep things sorted as much as possible .
Actually I thought also about Vertex Vectors , but then desired to try this
out .
v1.normalize x2 IS TYPING MISTAKE :)
Why they commented normal?
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Ken Railey <ken.rai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So using the texture coordinates is a bit of an unorthodox approach. I
> would take the cross product of two face edges and normalize that. Beyond
> that, I am not sure why to are normalizing v1 twice (or even once, just skip
> it). Also, that call to new Vector3D() when initializing normVect is
> wasted, since it gets overwritten on the next line.
> Also, after a quick glance at svn it seems like the Face class had a normal
> at some point that is just commented out. Maybe try using that?
> On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Guys , I was looking for Normal Face Vector in Lite and found none . I
>> tried to write my own . From my check It seems working ... But I would like
>> to get a confirmation from Math
>> experts here .
>> I used the tuvs to create 2 vectors on the Face plane, then did cross
>> product . Was that right ?
>> Here is the code:
>> var face:Face=sp.faces[45];
>> var v1:Vector3D=new Vector3D(face.t0,face.u0,face.v0);
>> var v2:Vector3D=new Vector3D(face.t1,face.u1,face.v1);
>> v1.normalize();
>> v1.normalize();
>> var normVect:Vector3D=new Vector3D();
>> normVect=v1.crossProduct(v2);
>> normVect.normalize();
I would also like to know why the normals are commented out in
away3dlite, as of the latest trunk revision (2613)? In the mean time
I'm going to use them and see if they work as expected.
On May 3, 1:33 am, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are right , I just like to keep things sorted as much as possible .
> Actually I thought also about Vertex Vectors , but then desired to try this
> out .
> v1.normalize x2 IS TYPING MISTAKE :)
> Why they commented normal?
> Thanks For Help
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Ken Railey <ken.rai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So using the texture coordinates is a bit of an unorthodox approach. I
> > would take the cross product of two face edges and normalize that. Beyond
> > that, I am not sure why to are normalizing v1 twice (or even once, just skip
> > it). Also, that call to new Vector3D() when initializing normVect is
> > wasted, since it gets overwritten on the next line.
> > Also, after a quick glance at svn it seems like the Face class had a normal
> > at some point that is just commented out. Maybe try using that?
> > On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Guys , I was looking for Normal Face Vector in Lite and found none . I
> >> tried to write my own . From my check It seems working ... But I would like
> >> to get a confirmation from Math
> >> experts here .
> >> I used the tuvs to create 2 vectors on the Face plane, then did cross
> >> product . Was that right ?
> >> Here is the code:
> >> var face:Face=sp.faces[45];
> >> var v1:Vector3D=new Vector3D(face.t0,face.u0,face.v0);
> >> var v2:Vector3D=new Vector3D(face.t1,face.u1,face.v1);
> >> v1.normalize();
> >> v1.normalize();
> >> var normVect:Vector3D=new Vector3D();
> >> normVect=v1.crossProduct(v2);
> >> normVect.normalize();
Also, why are the vertices of faces now private with no getters or
setters? Why were mapping coordinates used to calculate the normals
instead of the vertices like in Away3D 3.x?
On Jun 21, 11:09 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would also like to know why the normals are commented out in
> away3dlite, as of the latest trunk revision (2613)? In the mean time
> I'm going to use them and see if they work as expected.
> On May 3, 1:33 am, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You are right , I just like to keep things sorted as much as possible .
> > Actually I thought also about Vertex Vectors , but then desired to try this
> > out .
> > v1.normalize x2 IS TYPING MISTAKE :)
> > Why they commented normal?
> > Thanks For Help
> > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Ken Railey <ken.rai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So using the texture coordinates is a bit of an unorthodox approach. I
> > > would take the cross product of two face edges and normalize that. Beyond
> > > that, I am not sure why to are normalizing v1 twice (or even once, just skip
> > > it). Also, that call to new Vector3D() when initializing normVect is
> > > wasted, since it gets overwritten on the next line.
> > > Also, after a quick glance at svn it seems like the Face class had a normal
> > > at some point that is just commented out. Maybe try using that?
> > > On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Hi Guys , I was looking for Normal Face Vector in Lite and found none . I
> > >> tried to write my own . From my check It seems working ... But I would like
> > >> to get a confirmation from Math
> > >> experts here .
> > >> I used the tuvs to create 2 vectors on the Face plane, then did cross
> > >> product . Was that right ?
> > >> Here is the code:
> > >> var face:Face=sp.faces[45];
> > >> var v1:Vector3D=new Vector3D(face.t0,face.u0,face.v0);
> > >> var v2:Vector3D=new Vector3D(face.t1,face.u1,face.v1);
> > >> v1.normalize();
> > >> v1.normalize();
> > >> var normVect:Vector3D=new Vector3D();
> > >> normVect=v1.crossProduct(v2);
> > >> normVect.normalize();
While I'm still hoping for answers to my questions, I wanted to note
that I uncommented the normals code in the faces in away3dlite and it
works well. I also was able to use it to put basic face linking
functionality into lite. I'll post it up on my blog soon if any is
interested.
On Jun 21, 11:33 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, why are the vertices of faces now private with no getters or
> setters? Why were mapping coordinates used to calculate the normals
> instead of the vertices like in Away3D 3.x?
> On Jun 21, 11:09 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would also like to know why the normals are commented out in
> > away3dlite, as of the latest trunk revision (2613)? In the mean time
> > I'm going to use them and see if they work as expected.
> > On May 3, 1:33 am, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > You are right , I just like to keep things sorted as much as possible .
> > > Actually I thought also about Vertex Vectors , but then desired to try this
> > > out .
> > > v1.normalize x2 IS TYPING MISTAKE :)
> > > Why they commented normal?
> > > Thanks For Help
> > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Ken Railey <ken.rai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > So using the texture coordinates is a bit of an unorthodox approach. I
> > > > would take the cross product of two face edges and normalize that. Beyond
> > > > that, I am not sure why to are normalizing v1 twice (or even once, just skip
> > > > it). Also, that call to new Vector3D() when initializing normVect is
> > > > wasted, since it gets overwritten on the next line.
> > > > Also, after a quick glance at svn it seems like the Face class had a normal
> > > > at some point that is just commented out. Maybe try using that?
> > > > On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Hi Guys , I was looking for Normal Face Vector in Lite and found none . I
> > > >> tried to write my own . From my check It seems working ... But I would like
> > > >> to get a confirmation from Math
> > > >> experts here .
> > > >> I used the tuvs to create 2 vectors on the Face plane, then did cross
> > > >> product . Was that right ?
> > > >> Here is the code:
> > > >> var face:Face=sp.faces[45];
> > > >> var v1:Vector3D=new Vector3D(face.t0,face.u0,face.v0);
> > > >> var v2:Vector3D=new Vector3D(face.t1,face.u1,face.v1);
> > > >> v1.normalize();
> > > >> v1.normalize();
> > > >> var normVect:Vector3D=new Vector3D();
> > > >> normVect=v1.crossProduct(v2);
> > > >> normVect.normalize();
I talked to Rob Bateman about this issue a few weeks ago in relation to another class. He said that some properties became private in order to not be exposed for a regular user .(Still don't understand a reason for this).But you can still access most of these using arcane namespace.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:56 AM, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> While I'm still hoping for answers to my questions, I wanted to note > that I uncommented the normals code in the faces in away3dlite and it > works well. I also was able to use it to put basic face linking > functionality into lite. I'll post it up on my blog soon if any is > interested.
> On Jun 21, 11:33 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Also, why are the vertices of faces now private with no getters or > > setters? Why were mapping coordinates used to calculate the normals > > instead of the vertices like in Away3D 3.x?
> > On Jun 21, 11:09 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I would also like to know why the normals are commented out in > > > away3dlite, as of the latest trunk revision (2613)? In the mean time > > > I'm going to use them and see if they work as expected.
> > > On May 3, 1:33 am, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > You are right , I just like to keep things sorted as much as possible > . > > > > Actually I thought also about Vertex Vectors , but then desired to > try this > > > > out . > > > > v1.normalize x2 IS TYPING MISTAKE :) > > > > Why they commented normal?
> > > > Thanks For Help
> > > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Ken Railey <ken.rai...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > So using the texture coordinates is a bit of an unorthodox > approach. I > > > > > would take the cross product of two face edges and normalize that. > Beyond > > > > > that, I am not sure why to are normalizing v1 twice (or even once, > just skip > > > > > it). Also, that call to new Vector3D() when initializing normVect > is > > > > > wasted, since it gets overwritten on the next line.
> > > > > Also, after a quick glance at svn it seems like the Face class had > a normal > > > > > at some point that is just commented out. Maybe try using that?
> > > > > On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > > > >> Hi Guys , I was looking for Normal Face Vector in Lite and found > none . I > > > > >> tried to write my own . From my check It seems working ... But I > would like > > > > >> to get a confirmation from Math > > > > >> experts here . > > > > >> I used the tuvs to create 2 vectors on the Face plane, then did > cross > > > > >> product . Was that right ?
> > > > >> Here is the code: > > > > >> var face:Face=sp.faces[45]; > > > > >> var v1:Vector3D=new > Vector3D(face.t0,face.u0,face.v0); > > > > >> var v2:Vector3D=new > Vector3D(face.t1,face.u1,face.v1); > > > > >> v1.normalize(); > > > > >> v1.normalize(); > > > > >> var normVect:Vector3D=new Vector3D(); > > > > >> normVect=v1.crossProduct(v2); > > > > >> normVect.normalize();
it's for speed reason, dot access is slower, so private _vertices is just bypass that dot and acting like referrer, you can saw bypass like this every where in lite libs
if you really want to access vertices you can use mesh.vertices and provide faceIndex for each face, or mesh.faces[index]
for normal comment out there is just under development for light somehow, it's not in my field btw
hth
On 22 June 2010 14:10, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I talked to Rob Bateman about this issue a few weeks ago in relation to > another class. He said that some properties became private in order to not > be exposed for a regular user .(Still don't understand a reason for > this).But you can still access most of these using arcane namespace.
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:56 AM, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> While I'm still hoping for answers to my questions, I wanted to note >> that I uncommented the normals code in the faces in away3dlite and it >> works well. I also was able to use it to put basic face linking >> functionality into lite. I'll post it up on my blog soon if any is >> interested.
>> On Jun 21, 11:33 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Also, why are the vertices of faces now private with no getters or >> > setters? Why were mapping coordinates used to calculate the normals >> > instead of the vertices like in Away3D 3.x?
>> > On Jun 21, 11:09 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > I would also like to know why the normals are commented out in >> > > away3dlite, as of the latest trunk revision (2613)? In the mean time >> > > I'm going to use them and see if they work as expected.
>> > > On May 3, 1:33 am, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > You are right , I just like to keep things sorted as much as >> possible . >> > > > Actually I thought also about Vertex Vectors , but then desired to >> try this >> > > > out . >> > > > v1.normalize x2 IS TYPING MISTAKE :) >> > > > Why they commented normal?
>> > > > Thanks For Help
>> > > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Ken Railey <ken.rai...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > > > So using the texture coordinates is a bit of an unorthodox >> approach. I >> > > > > would take the cross product of two face edges and normalize that. >> Beyond >> > > > > that, I am not sure why to are normalizing v1 twice (or even once, >> just skip >> > > > > it). Also, that call to new Vector3D() when initializing normVect >> is >> > > > > wasted, since it gets overwritten on the next line.
>> > > > > Also, after a quick glance at svn it seems like the Face class had >> a normal >> > > > > at some point that is just commented out. Maybe try using that?
>> > > > > On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>> > > > >> Hi Guys , I was looking for Normal Face Vector in Lite and found >> none . I >> > > > >> tried to write my own . From my check It seems working ... But I >> would like >> > > > >> to get a confirmation from Math >> > > > >> experts here . >> > > > >> I used the tuvs to create 2 vectors on the Face plane, then did >> cross >> > > > >> product . Was that right ?
>> > > > >> Here is the code: >> > > > >> var face:Face=sp.faces[45]; >> > > > >> var v1:Vector3D=new >> Vector3D(face.t0,face.u0,face.v0); >> > > > >> var v2:Vector3D=new >> Vector3D(face.t1,face.u1,face.v1); >> > > > >> v1.normalize(); >> > > > >> v1.normalize(); >> > > > >> var normVect:Vector3D=new Vector3D(); >> > > > >> normVect=v1.crossProduct(v2); >> > > > >> normVect.normalize();
For anyone interested I have just got face linking (on steroids)
working in lite. All credit goes to the original FaceLink author as
98% is just copied code from there. The rest is just minor
computational changes using Vector3D in the absence of Number3D. The
code I have now requires minor changes to Face.as, but I'm going to
see if I can also do it without changing the source and maintain a
good framerate. I'll post it up once I have it all ironed out.
On Jun 22, 3:38 am, katopz <kat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> it's for speed reason, dot access is slower, so private _vertices is just
> bypass that dot and acting like referrer, you can saw bypass like this every
> where in lite libs
> if you really want to access vertices you can use mesh.vertices and provide
> faceIndex for each face, or mesh.faces[index]
> for normal comment out there is just under development for light somehow,
> it's not in my field btw
> hth
> On 22 June 2010 14:10, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I talked to Rob Bateman about this issue a few weeks ago in relation to
> > another class. He said that some properties became private in order to not
> > be exposed for a regular user .(Still don't understand a reason for
> > this).But you can still access most of these using arcane namespace.
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:56 AM, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >> While I'm still hoping for answers to my questions, I wanted to note
> >> that I uncommented the normals code in the faces in away3dlite and it
> >> works well. I also was able to use it to put basic face linking
> >> functionality into lite. I'll post it up on my blog soon if any is
> >> interested.
> >> On Jun 21, 11:33 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Also, why are the vertices of faces now private with no getters or
> >> > setters? Why were mapping coordinates used to calculate the normals
> >> > instead of the vertices like in Away3D 3.x?
> >> > On Jun 21, 11:09 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > I would also like to know why the normals are commented out in
> >> > > away3dlite, as of the latest trunk revision (2613)? In the mean time
> >> > > I'm going to use them and see if they work as expected.
> >> > > On May 3, 1:33 am, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > You are right , I just like to keep things sorted as much as
> >> possible .
> >> > > > Actually I thought also about Vertex Vectors , but then desired to
> >> try this
> >> > > > out .
> >> > > > v1.normalize x2 IS TYPING MISTAKE :)
> >> > > > Why they commented normal?
> >> > > > Thanks For Help
> >> > > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Ken Railey <ken.rai...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > > So using the texture coordinates is a bit of an unorthodox
> >> approach. I
> >> > > > > would take the cross product of two face edges and normalize that.
> >> Beyond
> >> > > > > that, I am not sure why to are normalizing v1 twice (or even once,
> >> just skip
> >> > > > > it). Also, that call to new Vector3D() when initializing normVect
> >> is
> >> > > > > wasted, since it gets overwritten on the next line.
> >> > > > > Also, after a quick glance at svn it seems like the Face class had
> >> a normal
> >> > > > > at some point that is just commented out. Maybe try using that?
> >> > > > > On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > >> Hi Guys , I was looking for Normal Face Vector in Lite and found
> >> none . I
> >> > > > >> tried to write my own . From my check It seems working ... But I
> >> would like
> >> > > > >> to get a confirmation from Math
> >> > > > >> experts here .
> >> > > > >> I used the tuvs to create 2 vectors on the Face plane, then did
> >> cross
> >> > > > >> product . Was that right ?
normals and face linking in away3dlite. The face linking is not a
rolled up class like FaceLink in Away3D since the modifications were
minimal. I did make changes to Face.as to include a normal and center
at creation time, so as long as you don't deform the mesh, everything
should work. If you do deform the mesh (like with as3mod or manually)
you would just need to recalculate the normal and center for each face
affected.
One note, katopz mentioned that you could access a face's vertices
through face.mesh.vertices, but I never got around to trying that. By
doing that and maintaining your own vectors of face centers and
normals, you could create this face linking code without making
changes to Face.as, if you were so inclined.
On Jun 23, 11:37 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For anyone interested I have just got face linking (on steroids)
> working in lite. All credit goes to the original FaceLink author as
> 98% is just copied code from there. The rest is just minor
> computational changes using Vector3D in the absence of Number3D. The
> code I have now requires minor changes to Face.as, but I'm going to
> see if I can also do it without changing the source and maintain a
> good framerate. I'll post it up once I have it all ironed out.
> On Jun 22, 3:38 am, katopz <kat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey guys
> > it's for speed reason, dot access is slower, so private _vertices is just
> > bypass that dot and acting like referrer, you can saw bypass like this every
> > where in lite libs
> > if you really want to access vertices you can use mesh.vertices and provide
> > faceIndex for each face, or mesh.faces[index]
> > for normal comment out there is just under development for light somehow,
> > it's not in my field btw
> > hth
> > On 22 June 2010 14:10, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I talked to Rob Bateman about this issue a few weeks ago in relation to
> > > another class. He said that some properties became private in order to not
> > > be exposed for a regular user .(Still don't understand a reason for
> > > this).But you can still access most of these using arcane namespace.
> > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:56 AM, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > >> While I'm still hoping for answers to my questions, I wanted to note
> > >> that I uncommented the normals code in the faces in away3dlite and it
> > >> works well. I also was able to use it to put basic face linking
> > >> functionality into lite. I'll post it up on my blog soon if any is
> > >> interested.
> > >> On Jun 21, 11:33 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > Also, why are the vertices of faces now private with no getters or
> > >> > setters? Why were mapping coordinates used to calculate the normals
> > >> > instead of the vertices like in Away3D 3.x?
> > >> > On Jun 21, 11:09 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > I would also like to know why the normals are commented out in
> > >> > > away3dlite, as of the latest trunk revision (2613)? In the mean time
> > >> > > I'm going to use them and see if they work as expected.
> > >> > > On May 3, 1:33 am, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > You are right , I just like to keep things sorted as much as
> > >> possible .
> > >> > > > Actually I thought also about Vertex Vectors , but then desired to
> > >> try this
> > >> > > > out .
> > >> > > > v1.normalize x2 IS TYPING MISTAKE :)
> > >> > > > Why they commented normal?
> > >> > > > Thanks For Help
> > >> > > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Ken Railey <ken.rai...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > > So using the texture coordinates is a bit of an unorthodox
> > >> approach. I
> > >> > > > > would take the cross product of two face edges and normalize that.
> > >> Beyond
> > >> > > > > that, I am not sure why to are normalizing v1 twice (or even once,
> > >> just skip
> > >> > > > > it). Also, that call to new Vector3D() when initializing normVect
> > >> is
> > >> > > > > wasted, since it gets overwritten on the next line.
> > >> > > > > Also, after a quick glance at svn it seems like the Face class had
> > >> a normal
> > >> > > > > at some point that is just commented out. Maybe try using that?
> > >> > > > > On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > >> Hi Guys , I was looking for Normal Face Vector in Lite and found
> > >> none . I
> > >> > > > >> tried to write my own . From my check It seems working ... But I
> > >> would like
> > >> > > > >> to get a confirmation from Math
> > >> > > > >> experts here .
> > >> > > > >> I used the tuvs to create 2 vectors on the Face plane, then did
> > >> cross
> > >> > > > >> product . Was that right ?
> normals and face linking in away3dlite. The face linking is not a > rolled up class like FaceLink in Away3D since the modifications were > minimal. I did make changes to Face.as to include a normal and center > at creation time, so as long as you don't deform the mesh, everything > should work. If you do deform the mesh (like with as3mod or manually) > you would just need to recalculate the normal and center for each face > affected.
> One note, katopz mentioned that you could access a face's vertices > through face.mesh.vertices, but I never got around to trying that. By > doing that and maintaining your own vectors of face centers and > normals, you could create this face linking code without making > changes to Face.as, if you were so inclined.
> On Jun 23, 11:37 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the insights katopz.
> > For anyone interested I have just got face linking (on steroids) > > working in lite. All credit goes to the original FaceLink author as > > 98% is just copied code from there. The rest is just minor > > computational changes using Vector3D in the absence of Number3D. The > > code I have now requires minor changes to Face.as, but I'm going to > > see if I can also do it without changing the source and maintain a > > good framerate. I'll post it up once I have it all ironed out.
> > On Jun 22, 3:38 am, katopz <kat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hey guys
> > > it's for speed reason, dot access is slower, so private _vertices is > just > > > bypass that dot and acting like referrer, you can saw bypass like this > every > > > where in lite libs
> > > if you really want to access vertices you can use mesh.vertices and > provide > > > faceIndex for each face, or mesh.faces[index]
> > > for normal comment out there is just under development for light > somehow, > > > it's not in my field btw
> > > hth
> > > On 22 June 2010 14:10, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I talked to Rob Bateman about this issue a few weeks ago in relation > to > > > > another class. He said that some properties became private in order > to not > > > > be exposed for a regular user .(Still don't understand a reason for > > > > this).But you can still access most of these using arcane namespace.
> > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:56 AM, savagelook < > anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > >> While I'm still hoping for answers to my questions, I wanted to note > > > >> that I uncommented the normals code in the faces in away3dlite and > it > > > >> works well. I also was able to use it to put basic face linking > > > >> functionality into lite. I'll post it up on my blog soon if any is > > > >> interested.
> > > >> On Jun 21, 11:33 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> > Also, why are the vertices of faces now private with no getters or > > > >> > setters? Why were mapping coordinates used to calculate the > normals > > > >> > instead of the vertices like in Away3D 3.x?
> > > >> > On Jun 21, 11:09 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > > >> > > I would also like to know why the normals are commented out in > > > >> > > away3dlite, as of the latest trunk revision (2613)? In the mean > time > > > >> > > I'm going to use them and see if they work as expected.
> > > >> > > On May 3, 1:33 am, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > You are right , I just like to keep things sorted as much as > > > >> possible . > > > >> > > > Actually I thought also about Vertex Vectors , but then > desired to > > > >> try this > > > >> > > > out . > > > >> > > > v1.normalize x2 IS TYPING MISTAKE :) > > > >> > > > Why they commented normal?
> > > >> > > > Thanks For Help
> > > >> > > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Ken Railey < > ken.rai...@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > So using the texture coordinates is a bit of an unorthodox > > > >> approach. I > > > >> > > > > would take the cross product of two face edges and normalize > that. > > > >> Beyond > > > >> > > > > that, I am not sure why to are normalizing v1 twice (or even > once, > > > >> just skip > > > >> > > > > it). Also, that call to new Vector3D() when initializing > normVect > > > >> is > > > >> > > > > wasted, since it gets overwritten on the next line.
> > > >> > > > > Also, after a quick glance at svn it seems like the Face > class had > > > >> a normal > > > >> > > > > at some point that is just commented out. Maybe try using > that?
> > > >> > > > > On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Michael Iv < > explomas...@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> Hi Guys , I was looking for Normal Face Vector in Lite and > found > > > >> none . I > > > >> > > > >> tried to write my own . From my check It seems working ... > But I > > > >> would like > > > >> > > > >> to get a confirmation from Math > > > >> > > > >> experts here . > > > >> > > > >> I used the tuvs to create 2 vectors on the Face plane, then > did > > > >> cross > > > >> > > > >> product . Was that right ?
> normals and face linking in away3dlite. The face linking is not a > rolled up class like FaceLink in Away3D since the modifications were > minimal. I did make changes to Face.as to include a normal and center > at creation time, so as long as you don't deform the mesh, everything > should work. If you do deform the mesh (like with as3mod or manually) > you would just need to recalculate the normal and center for each face > affected.
> One note, katopz mentioned that you could access a face's vertices > through face.mesh.vertices, but I never got around to trying that. By > doing that and maintaining your own vectors of face centers and > normals, you could create this face linking code without making > changes to Face.as, if you were so inclined.
> On Jun 23, 11:37 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the insights katopz.
> > For anyone interested I have just got face linking (on steroids) > > working in lite. All credit goes to the original FaceLink author as > > 98% is just copied code from there. The rest is just minor > > computational changes using Vector3D in the absence of Number3D. The > > code I have now requires minor changes to Face.as, but I'm going to > > see if I can also do it without changing the source and maintain a > > good framerate. I'll post it up once I have it all ironed out.
> > On Jun 22, 3:38 am, katopz <kat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hey guys
> > > it's for speed reason, dot access is slower, so private _vertices is > just > > > bypass that dot and acting like referrer, you can saw bypass like this > every > > > where in lite libs
> > > if you really want to access vertices you can use mesh.vertices and > provide > > > faceIndex for each face, or mesh.faces[index]
> > > for normal comment out there is just under development for light > somehow, > > > it's not in my field btw
> > > hth
> > > On 22 June 2010 14:10, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I talked to Rob Bateman about this issue a few weeks ago in relation > to > > > > another class. He said that some properties became private in order > to not > > > > be exposed for a regular user .(Still don't understand a reason for > > > > this).But you can still access most of these using arcane namespace.
> > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:56 AM, savagelook < > anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > >> While I'm still hoping for answers to my questions, I wanted to note > > > >> that I uncommented the normals code in the faces in away3dlite and > it > > > >> works well. I also was able to use it to put basic face linking > > > >> functionality into lite. I'll post it up on my blog soon if any is > > > >> interested.
> > > >> On Jun 21, 11:33 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> > Also, why are the vertices of faces now private with no getters or > > > >> > setters? Why were mapping coordinates used to calculate the > normals > > > >> > instead of the vertices like in Away3D 3.x?
> > > >> > On Jun 21, 11:09 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > > >> > > I would also like to know why the normals are commented out in > > > >> > > away3dlite, as of the latest trunk revision (2613)? In the mean > time > > > >> > > I'm going to use them and see if they work as expected.
> > > >> > > On May 3, 1:33 am, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > You are right , I just like to keep things sorted as much as > > > >> possible . > > > >> > > > Actually I thought also about Vertex Vectors , but then > desired to > > > >> try this > > > >> > > > out . > > > >> > > > v1.normalize x2 IS TYPING MISTAKE :) > > > >> > > > Why they commented normal?
> > > >> > > > Thanks For Help
> > > >> > > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Ken Railey < > ken.rai...@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > So using the texture coordinates is a bit of an unorthodox > > > >> approach. I > > > >> > > > > would take the cross product of two face edges and normalize > that. > > > >> Beyond > > > >> > > > > that, I am not sure why to are normalizing v1 twice (or even > once, > > > >> just skip > > > >> > > > > it). Also, that call to new Vector3D() when initializing > normVect > > > >> is > > > >> > > > > wasted, since it gets overwritten on the next line.
> > > >> > > > > Also, after a quick glance at svn it seems like the Face > class had > > > >> a normal > > > >> > > > > at some point that is just commented out. Maybe try using > that?
> > > >> > > > > On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Michael Iv < > explomas...@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > >> Hi Guys , I was looking for Normal Face Vector in Lite and > found > > > >> none . I > > > >> > > > >> tried to write my own . From my check It seems working ... > But I > > > >> would like > > > >> > > > >> to get a confirmation from Math > > > >> > > > >> experts here . > > > >> > > > >> I used the tuvs to create 2 vectors on the Face plane, then > did > > > >> cross > > > >> > > > >> product . Was that right ?
Shoot, I forgot to mention I didn't do the alignment yet. I'm gonna
make another demo soon using planes to show the alignment part.
Should look pretty neat with just the planes and an invisible source
mesh.
On Jun 24, 10:44 am, Peter Kapelyan <flashn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > normals and face linking in away3dlite. The face linking is not a
> > rolled up class like FaceLink in Away3D since the modifications were
> > minimal. I did make changes to Face.as to include a normal and center
> > at creation time, so as long as you don't deform the mesh, everything
> > should work. If you do deform the mesh (like with as3mod or manually)
> > you would just need to recalculate the normal and center for each face
> > affected.
> > One note, katopz mentioned that you could access a face's vertices
> > through face.mesh.vertices, but I never got around to trying that. By
> > doing that and maintaining your own vectors of face centers and
> > normals, you could create this face linking code without making
> > changes to Face.as, if you were so inclined.
> > On Jun 23, 11:37 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thanks for the insights katopz.
> > > For anyone interested I have just got face linking (on steroids)
> > > working in lite. All credit goes to the original FaceLink author as
> > > 98% is just copied code from there. The rest is just minor
> > > computational changes using Vector3D in the absence of Number3D. The
> > > code I have now requires minor changes to Face.as, but I'm going to
> > > see if I can also do it without changing the source and maintain a
> > > good framerate. I'll post it up once I have it all ironed out.
> > > On Jun 22, 3:38 am, katopz <kat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hey guys
> > > > it's for speed reason, dot access is slower, so private _vertices is
> > just
> > > > bypass that dot and acting like referrer, you can saw bypass like this
> > every
> > > > where in lite libs
> > > > if you really want to access vertices you can use mesh.vertices and
> > provide
> > > > faceIndex for each face, or mesh.faces[index]
> > > > for normal comment out there is just under development for light
> > somehow,
> > > > it's not in my field btw
> > > > hth
> > > > On 22 June 2010 14:10, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I talked to Rob Bateman about this issue a few weeks ago in relation
> > to
> > > > > another class. He said that some properties became private in order
> > to not
> > > > > be exposed for a regular user .(Still don't understand a reason for
> > > > > this).But you can still access most of these using arcane namespace.
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:56 AM, savagelook <
> > anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > >> While I'm still hoping for answers to my questions, I wanted to note
> > > > >> that I uncommented the normals code in the faces in away3dlite and
> > it
> > > > >> works well. I also was able to use it to put basic face linking
> > > > >> functionality into lite. I'll post it up on my blog soon if any is
> > > > >> interested.
> > > > >> On Jun 21, 11:33 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >> > Also, why are the vertices of faces now private with no getters or
> > > > >> > setters? Why were mapping coordinates used to calculate the
> > normals
> > > > >> > instead of the vertices like in Away3D 3.x?
> > > > >> > On Jun 21, 11:09 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >> > > I would also like to know why the normals are commented out in
> > > > >> > > away3dlite, as of the latest trunk revision (2613)? In the mean
> > time
> > > > >> > > I'm going to use them and see if they work as expected.
> > > > >> > > On May 3, 1:33 am, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > You are right , I just like to keep things sorted as much as
> > > > >> possible .
> > > > >> > > > Actually I thought also about Vertex Vectors , but then
> > desired to
> > > > >> try this
> > > > >> > > > out .
> > > > >> > > > v1.normalize x2 IS TYPING MISTAKE :)
> > > > >> > > > Why they commented normal?
> > > > >> > > > Thanks For Help
> > > > >> > > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Ken Railey <
> > ken.rai...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > So using the texture coordinates is a bit of an unorthodox
> > > > >> approach. I
> > > > >> > > > > would take the cross product of two face edges and normalize
> > that.
> > > > >> Beyond
> > > > >> > > > > that, I am not sure why to are normalizing v1 twice (or even
> > once,
> > > > >> just skip
> > > > >> > > > > it). Also, that call to new Vector3D() when initializing
> > normVect
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> > > > > wasted, since it gets overwritten on the next line.
> > > > >> > > > > Also, after a quick glance at svn it seems like the Face
> > class had
> > > > >> a normal
> > > > >> > > > > at some point that is just commented out. Maybe try using
> > that?
> > > > >> > > > > On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Michael Iv <
> > explomas...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >> Hi Guys , I was looking for Normal Face Vector in Lite and
> > found
> > > > >> none . I
> > > > >> > > > >> tried to write my own . From my check It seems working ...
> > But I
> > > > >> would like
> > > > >> > > > >> to get a confirmation from Math
> > > > >> > > > >> experts here .
> > > > >> > > > >> I used the tuvs to create 2 vectors on the Face plane, then
> > did
> > > > >> cross
> > > > >> > > > >> product . Was that right ?
I started on the alignment but I had a problem. For some reason the
planes keep rotating along the normals even after adding the lookAt()
call when I'm updating the linked planes. Can anyone who knows 3d
math better than me explain why this is happening, its in the link
above. Thanks, its driving me nuts and I can't figure it out.
On Jun 24, 12:04 pm, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shoot, I forgot to mention I didn't do the alignment yet. I'm gonna
> make another demo soon using planes to show the alignment part.
> Should look pretty neat with just the planes and an invisible source
> mesh.
> On Jun 24, 10:44 am, Peter Kapelyan <flashn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hmm it doesn't seem aligned to the face (those things should be turning too,
> > no?).
> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:00 AM, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > normals and face linking in away3dlite. The face linking is not a
> > > rolled up class like FaceLink in Away3D since the modifications were
> > > minimal. I did make changes to Face.as to include a normal and center
> > > at creation time, so as long as you don't deform the mesh, everything
> > > should work. If you do deform the mesh (like with as3mod or manually)
> > > you would just need to recalculate the normal and center for each face
> > > affected.
> > > One note, katopz mentioned that you could access a face's vertices
> > > through face.mesh.vertices, but I never got around to trying that. By
> > > doing that and maintaining your own vectors of face centers and
> > > normals, you could create this face linking code without making
> > > changes to Face.as, if you were so inclined.
> > > On Jun 23, 11:37 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Thanks for the insights katopz.
> > > > For anyone interested I have just got face linking (on steroids)
> > > > working in lite. All credit goes to the original FaceLink author as
> > > > 98% is just copied code from there. The rest is just minor
> > > > computational changes using Vector3D in the absence of Number3D. The
> > > > code I have now requires minor changes to Face.as, but I'm going to
> > > > see if I can also do it without changing the source and maintain a
> > > > good framerate. I'll post it up once I have it all ironed out.
> > > > On Jun 22, 3:38 am, katopz <kat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hey guys
> > > > > it's for speed reason, dot access is slower, so private _vertices is
> > > just
> > > > > bypass that dot and acting like referrer, you can saw bypass like this
> > > every
> > > > > where in lite libs
> > > > > if you really want to access vertices you can use mesh.vertices and
> > > provide
> > > > > faceIndex for each face, or mesh.faces[index]
> > > > > for normal comment out there is just under development for light
> > > somehow,
> > > > > it's not in my field btw
> > > > > hth
> > > > > On 22 June 2010 14:10, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I talked to Rob Bateman about this issue a few weeks ago in relation
> > > to
> > > > > > another class. He said that some properties became private in order
> > > to not
> > > > > > be exposed for a regular user .(Still don't understand a reason for
> > > > > > this).But you can still access most of these using arcane namespace.
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:56 AM, savagelook <
> > > anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > >> While I'm still hoping for answers to my questions, I wanted to note
> > > > > >> that I uncommented the normals code in the faces in away3dlite and
> > > it
> > > > > >> works well. I also was able to use it to put basic face linking
> > > > > >> functionality into lite. I'll post it up on my blog soon if any is
> > > > > >> interested.
> > > > > >> On Jun 21, 11:33 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > Also, why are the vertices of faces now private with no getters or
> > > > > >> > setters? Why were mapping coordinates used to calculate the
> > > normals
> > > > > >> > instead of the vertices like in Away3D 3.x?
> > > > > >> > On Jun 21, 11:09 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > I would also like to know why the normals are commented out in
> > > > > >> > > away3dlite, as of the latest trunk revision (2613)? In the mean
> > > time
> > > > > >> > > I'm going to use them and see if they work as expected.
> > > > > >> > > On May 3, 1:33 am, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > You are right , I just like to keep things sorted as much as
> > > > > >> possible .
> > > > > >> > > > Actually I thought also about Vertex Vectors , but then
> > > desired to
> > > > > >> try this
> > > > > >> > > > out .
> > > > > >> > > > v1.normalize x2 IS TYPING MISTAKE :)
> > > > > >> > > > Why they commented normal?
> > > > > >> > > > Thanks For Help
> > > > > >> > > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Ken Railey <
> > > ken.rai...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > So using the texture coordinates is a bit of an unorthodox
> > > > > >> approach. I
> > > > > >> > > > > would take the cross product of two face edges and normalize
> > > that.
> > > > > >> Beyond
> > > > > >> > > > > that, I am not sure why to are normalizing v1 twice (or even
> > > once,
> > > > > >> just skip
> > > > > >> > > > > it). Also, that call to new Vector3D() when initializing
> > > normVect
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> > > > > wasted, since it gets overwritten on the next line.
> > > > > >> > > > > Also, after a quick glance at svn it seems like the Face
> > > class had
> > > > > >> a normal
> > > > > >> > > > > at some point that is just commented out. Maybe try using
> > > that?
> > > > > >> > > > > On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Michael Iv <
> > > explomas...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > >> Hi Guys , I was looking for Normal Face Vector in Lite and
> > > found
> > > > > >> none . I
> > > > > >> > > > >> tried to write my own . From my check It seems working ...
> > > But I
> > > > > >> would like
> > > > > >> > > > >> to get a confirmation from Math
> > > > > >> > > > >> experts here .
> > > > > >> > > > >> I used the tuvs to create 2 vectors on the Face plane, then
> > > did
> > > > > >> cross
> > > > > >> > > > >> product . Was that right ?
I believe the problem is with the lookAt's upAxis. lookAt first points
the z axis at the target and then tries to align a local up axis with
the scene's Y_AXIS. So, as your faces move they keep adjusting to
match their up axes with the scene's Y_AXIS.
Unless you want to use parenting, the only way I know to fix this is
to use an "up object" to aim the up axis at after the lookAt has been
done. I have a test of an up object with a link to the code here:
http://moosemouse.com/up-object-test.html
I have been using this for something quite different so it may not
immediately make sense to your project. But I *think* this is one way
to fix your problem. It is late so I am calling it a night, but let me
know if you would like further clarification.
Best,
Shawn
On Jun 24, 8:08 pm, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I started on the alignment but I had a problem. For some reason the
> planes keep rotating along the normals even after adding the lookAt()
> call when I'm updating the linked planes. Can anyone who knows 3d
> math better than me explain why this is happening, its in the link
> above. Thanks, its driving me nuts and I can't figure it out.
> On Jun 24, 12:04 pm, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Shoot, I forgot to mention I didn't do the alignment yet. I'm gonna
> > make another demo soon using planes to show the alignment part.
> > Should look pretty neat with just the planes and an invisible source
> > mesh.
> > On Jun 24, 10:44 am, Peter Kapelyan <flashn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hmm it doesn't seem aligned to the face (those things should be turning too,
> > > no?).
> > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:00 AM, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > normals and face linking in away3dlite. The face linking is not a
> > > > rolled up class like FaceLink in Away3D since the modifications were
> > > > minimal. I did make changes to Face.as to include a normal and center
> > > > at creation time, so as long as you don't deform the mesh, everything
> > > > should work. If you do deform the mesh (like with as3mod or manually)
> > > > you would just need to recalculate the normal and center for each face
> > > > affected.
> > > > One note, katopz mentioned that you could access a face's vertices
> > > > through face.mesh.vertices, but I never got around to trying that. By
> > > > doing that and maintaining your own vectors of face centers and
> > > > normals, you could create this face linking code without making
> > > > changes to Face.as, if you were so inclined.
> > > > On Jun 23, 11:37 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Thanks for the insights katopz.
> > > > > For anyone interested I have just got face linking (on steroids)
> > > > > working in lite. All credit goes to the original FaceLink author as
> > > > > 98% is just copied code from there. The rest is just minor
> > > > > computational changes using Vector3D in the absence of Number3D. The
> > > > > code I have now requires minor changes to Face.as, but I'm going to
> > > > > see if I can also do it without changing the source and maintain a
> > > > > good framerate. I'll post it up once I have it all ironed out.
> > > > > On Jun 22, 3:38 am, katopz <kat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Hey guys
> > > > > > it's for speed reason, dot access is slower, so private _vertices is
> > > > just
> > > > > > bypass that dot and acting like referrer, you can saw bypass like this
> > > > every
> > > > > > where in lite libs
> > > > > > if you really want to access vertices you can use mesh.vertices and
> > > > provide
> > > > > > faceIndex for each face, or mesh.faces[index]
> > > > > > for normal comment out there is just under development for light
> > > > somehow,
> > > > > > it's not in my field btw
> > > > > > hth
> > > > > > On 22 June 2010 14:10, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > I talked to Rob Bateman about this issue a few weeks ago in relation
> > > > to
> > > > > > > another class. He said that some properties became private in order
> > > > to not
> > > > > > > be exposed for a regular user .(Still don't understand a reason for
> > > > > > > this).But you can still access most of these using arcane namespace.
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:56 AM, savagelook <
> > > > anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > >> While I'm still hoping for answers to my questions, I wanted to note
> > > > > > >> that I uncommented the normals code in the faces in away3dlite and
> > > > it
> > > > > > >> works well. I also was able to use it to put basic face linking
> > > > > > >> functionality into lite. I'll post it up on my blog soon if any is
> > > > > > >> interested.
> > > > > > >> On Jun 21, 11:33 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > Also, why are the vertices of faces now private with no getters or
> > > > > > >> > setters? Why were mapping coordinates used to calculate the
> > > > normals
> > > > > > >> > instead of the vertices like in Away3D 3.x?
> > > > > > >> > On Jun 21, 11:09 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > I would also like to know why the normals are commented out in
> > > > > > >> > > away3dlite, as of the latest trunk revision (2613)? In the mean
> > > > time
> > > > > > >> > > I'm going to use them and see if they work as expected.
> > > > > > >> > > On May 3, 1:33 am, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > You are right , I just like to keep things sorted as much as
> > > > > > >> possible .
> > > > > > >> > > > Actually I thought also about Vertex Vectors , but then
> > > > desired to
> > > > > > >> try this
> > > > > > >> > > > out .
> > > > > > >> > > > v1.normalize x2 IS TYPING MISTAKE :)
> > > > > > >> > > > Why they commented normal?
> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks For Help
> > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Ken Railey <
> > > > ken.rai...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > So using the texture coordinates is a bit of an unorthodox
> > > > > > >> approach. I
> > > > > > >> > > > > would take the cross product of two face edges and normalize
> > > > that.
> > > > > > >> Beyond
> > > > > > >> > > > > that, I am not sure why to are normalizing v1 twice (or even
> > > > once,
> > > > > > >> just skip
> > > > > > >> > > > > it). Also, that call to new Vector3D() when initializing
> > > > normVect
> > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > >> > > > > wasted, since it gets overwritten on the next line.
> > > > > > >> > > > > Also, after a quick glance at svn it seems like the Face
> > > > class had
> > > > > > >> a normal
> > > > > > >> > > > > at some point that is just commented out. Maybe try using
> > > > that?
> > > > > > >> > > > > On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Michael Iv <
> > > > explomas...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > >> Hi Guys , I was looking for Normal Face Vector in Lite and
> > > > found
> > > > > > >> none . I
> > > > > > >> > > > >> tried to write my own . From my check It seems working ...
> > > > But I
> > > > > > >> would like
> > > > > > >> > > > >> to get a confirmation from Math
> > > > > > >> > > > >> experts here .
> > > > > > >> > > > >> I used the tuvs to create 2 vectors on the Face plane, then
> > > > did
> > > > > > >> cross
> > > > > > >> > > > >> product . Was that right ?
> I believe the problem is with the lookAt's upAxis. lookAt first points
> the z axis at the target and then tries to align a local up axis with
> the scene's Y_AXIS. So, as your faces move they keep adjusting to
> match their up axes with the scene's Y_AXIS.
> Unless you want to use parenting, the only way I know to fix this is
> to use an "up object" to aim the up axis at after the lookAt has been
> done. I have a test of an up object with a link to the code here:http://moosemouse.com/up-object-test.html
> I have been using this for something quite different so it may not
> immediately make sense to your project. But I *think* this is one way
> to fix your problem. It is late so I am calling it a night, but let me
> know if you would like further clarification.
> Best,
> Shawn
> On Jun 24, 8:08 pm, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I started on the alignment but I had a problem. For some reason the
> > planes keep rotating along the normals even after adding the lookAt()
> > call when I'm updating the linked planes. Can anyone who knows 3d
> > math better than me explain why this is happening, its in the link
> > above. Thanks, its driving me nuts and I can't figure it out.
> > On Jun 24, 12:04 pm, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Shoot, I forgot to mention I didn't do the alignment yet. I'm gonna
> > > make another demo soon using planes to show the alignment part.
> > > Should look pretty neat with just the planes and an invisible source
> > > mesh.
> > > On Jun 24, 10:44 am, Peter Kapelyan <flashn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hmm it doesn't seem aligned to the face (those things should be turning too,
> > > > no?).
> > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:00 AM, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > normals and face linking in away3dlite. The face linking is not a
> > > > > rolled up class like FaceLink in Away3D since the modifications were
> > > > > minimal. I did make changes to Face.as to include a normal and center
> > > > > at creation time, so as long as you don't deform the mesh, everything
> > > > > should work. If you do deform the mesh (like with as3mod or manually)
> > > > > you would just need to recalculate the normal and center for each face
> > > > > affected.
> > > > > One note, katopz mentioned that you could access a face's vertices
> > > > > through face.mesh.vertices, but I never got around to trying that. By
> > > > > doing that and maintaining your own vectors of face centers and
> > > > > normals, you could create this face linking code without making
> > > > > changes to Face.as, if you were so inclined.
> > > > > On Jun 23, 11:37 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Thanks for the insights katopz.
> > > > > > For anyone interested I have just got face linking (on steroids)
> > > > > > working in lite. All credit goes to the original FaceLink author as
> > > > > > 98% is just copied code from there. The rest is just minor
> > > > > > computational changes using Vector3D in the absence of Number3D. The
> > > > > > code I have now requires minor changes to Face.as, but I'm going to
> > > > > > see if I can also do it without changing the source and maintain a
> > > > > > good framerate. I'll post it up once I have it all ironed out.
> > > > > > On Jun 22, 3:38 am, katopz <kat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hey guys
> > > > > > > it's for speed reason, dot access is slower, so private _vertices is
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > bypass that dot and acting like referrer, you can saw bypass like this
> > > > > every
> > > > > > > where in lite libs
> > > > > > > if you really want to access vertices you can use mesh.vertices and
> > > > > provide
> > > > > > > faceIndex for each face, or mesh.faces[index]
> > > > > > > for normal comment out there is just under development for light
> > > > > somehow,
> > > > > > > it's not in my field btw
> > > > > > > hth
> > > > > > > On 22 June 2010 14:10, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I talked to Rob Bateman about this issue a few weeks ago in relation
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > another class. He said that some properties became private in order
> > > > > to not
> > > > > > > > be exposed for a regular user .(Still don't understand a reason for
> > > > > > > > this).But you can still access most of these using arcane namespace.
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:56 AM, savagelook <
> > > > > anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > >> While I'm still hoping for answers to my questions, I wanted to note
> > > > > > > >> that I uncommented the normals code in the faces in away3dlite and
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> works well. I also was able to use it to put basic face linking
> > > > > > > >> functionality into lite. I'll post it up on my blog soon if any is
> > > > > > > >> interested.
> > > > > > > >> On Jun 21, 11:33 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > Also, why are the vertices of faces now private with no getters or
> > > > > > > >> > setters? Why were mapping coordinates used to calculate the
> > > > > normals
> > > > > > > >> > instead of the vertices like in Away3D 3.x?
> > > > > > > >> > > I would also like to know why the normals are commented out in
> > > > > > > >> > > away3dlite, as of the latest trunk revision (2613)? In the mean
> > > > > time
> > > > > > > >> > > I'm going to use them and see if they work as expected.
> > > > > > > >> > > On May 3, 1:33 am, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > You are right , I just like to keep things sorted as much as
> > > > > > > >> possible .
> > > > > > > >> > > > Actually I thought also about Vertex Vectors , but then
> > > > > desired to
> > > > > > > >> try this
> > > > > > > >> > > > out .
> > > > > > > >> > > > v1.normalize x2 IS TYPING MISTAKE :)
> > > > > > > >> > > > Why they commented normal?
> > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks For Help
> > > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Ken Railey <
> > > > > ken.rai...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > So using the texture coordinates is a bit of an unorthodox
> > > > > > > >> approach. I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > would take the cross product of two face edges and normalize
> > > > > that.
> > > > > > > >> Beyond
> > > > > > > >> > > > > that, I am not sure why to are normalizing v1 twice (or even
> > > > > once,
> > > > > > > >> just skip
> > > > > > > >> > > > > it). Also, that call to new Vector3D() when initializing
> > > > > normVect
> > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > wasted, since it gets overwritten on the next line.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Also, after a quick glance at svn it seems like the Face
> > > > > class had
> > > > > > > >> a normal
> > > > > > > >> > > > > at some point that is just commented out. Maybe try using
> > > > > that?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Michael Iv <
> > > > > explomas...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> Hi Guys , I was looking for Normal Face Vector in Lite and
> > > > > found
> > > > > > > >> none . I
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> tried to write my own . From my check It seems working ...
> > > > > But I
> > > > > > > >> would like
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> to get a confirmation from Math
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> experts here .
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> I used the tuvs to create 2 vectors on the Face plane, then
> > > > > did
> > > > > > > >> cross
> > > > > > > >> > > > >> product . Was that right ?
Well, I think your code/math is over my head for now, but I get what
you meant by parenting. I put the source object and the linked
objects inside an ObjectContainer3D and everything works as expected.
This should suit my needs for now. I've got a book on 3d math I
ordered a little while ago that I haven't had time to dive into yet.
Looks like this might be the catalyst for finally reading it.
On Jun 25, 8:22 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm looking at your code now to see how I can apply it, but what do
> you mean by "use parenting" to solve this problem? I'm open to
> anything.
> On Jun 25, 3:59 am, Shawn <sh...@moosemouse.com> wrote:
> > I believe the problem is with the lookAt's upAxis. lookAt first points
> > the z axis at the target and then tries to align a local up axis with
> > the scene's Y_AXIS. So, as your faces move they keep adjusting to
> > match their up axes with the scene's Y_AXIS.
> > Unless you want to use parenting, the only way I know to fix this is
> > to use an "up object" to aim the up axis at after the lookAt has been
> > done. I have a test of an up object with a link to the code here:http://moosemouse.com/up-object-test.html
> > I have been using this for something quite different so it may not
> > immediately make sense to your project. But I *think* this is one way
> > to fix your problem. It is late so I am calling it a night, but let me
> > know if you would like further clarification.
> > Best,
> > Shawn
> > On Jun 24, 8:08 pm, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I started on the alignment but I had a problem. For some reason the
> > > planes keep rotating along the normals even after adding the lookAt()
> > > call when I'm updating the linked planes. Can anyone who knows 3d
> > > math better than me explain why this is happening, its in the link
> > > above. Thanks, its driving me nuts and I can't figure it out.
> > > On Jun 24, 12:04 pm, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Shoot, I forgot to mention I didn't do the alignment yet. I'm gonna
> > > > make another demo soon using planes to show the alignment part.
> > > > Should look pretty neat with just the planes and an invisible source
> > > > mesh.
> > > > On Jun 24, 10:44 am, Peter Kapelyan <flashn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hmm it doesn't seem aligned to the face (those things should be turning too,
> > > > > no?).
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:00 AM, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > normals and face linking in away3dlite. The face linking is not a
> > > > > > rolled up class like FaceLink in Away3D since the modifications were
> > > > > > minimal. I did make changes to Face.as to include a normal and center
> > > > > > at creation time, so as long as you don't deform the mesh, everything
> > > > > > should work. If you do deform the mesh (like with as3mod or manually)
> > > > > > you would just need to recalculate the normal and center for each face
> > > > > > affected.
> > > > > > One note, katopz mentioned that you could access a face's vertices
> > > > > > through face.mesh.vertices, but I never got around to trying that. By
> > > > > > doing that and maintaining your own vectors of face centers and
> > > > > > normals, you could create this face linking code without making
> > > > > > changes to Face.as, if you were so inclined.
> > > > > > On Jun 23, 11:37 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Thanks for the insights katopz.
> > > > > > > For anyone interested I have just got face linking (on steroids)
> > > > > > > working in lite. All credit goes to the original FaceLink author as
> > > > > > > 98% is just copied code from there. The rest is just minor
> > > > > > > computational changes using Vector3D in the absence of Number3D. The
> > > > > > > code I have now requires minor changes to Face.as, but I'm going to
> > > > > > > see if I can also do it without changing the source and maintain a
> > > > > > > good framerate. I'll post it up once I have it all ironed out.
> > > > > > > On Jun 22, 3:38 am, katopz <kat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hey guys
> > > > > > > > it's for speed reason, dot access is slower, so private _vertices is
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > bypass that dot and acting like referrer, you can saw bypass like this
> > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > where in lite libs
> > > > > > > > if you really want to access vertices you can use mesh.vertices and
> > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > faceIndex for each face, or mesh.faces[index]
> > > > > > > > for normal comment out there is just under development for light
> > > > > > somehow,
> > > > > > > > it's not in my field btw
> > > > > > > > hth
> > > > > > > > On 22 June 2010 14:10, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I talked to Rob Bateman about this issue a few weeks ago in relation
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > another class. He said that some properties became private in order
> > > > > > to not
> > > > > > > > > be exposed for a regular user .(Still don't understand a reason for
> > > > > > > > > this).But you can still access most of these using arcane namespace.
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:56 AM, savagelook <
> > > > > > anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> While I'm still hoping for answers to my questions, I wanted to note
> > > > > > > > >> that I uncommented the normals code in the faces in away3dlite and
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> works well. I also was able to use it to put basic face linking
> > > > > > > > >> functionality into lite. I'll post it up on my blog soon if any is
> > > > > > > > >> interested.
> > > > > > > > >> On Jun 21, 11:33 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > Also, why are the vertices of faces now private with no getters or
> > > > > > > > >> > setters? Why were mapping coordinates used to calculate the
> > > > > > normals
> > > > > > > > >> > instead of the vertices like in Away3D 3.x?
> > > > > > > > >> > > I would also like to know why the normals are commented out in
> > > > > > > > >> > > away3dlite, as of the latest trunk revision (2613)? In the mean
> > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > >> > > I'm going to use them and see if they work as expected.
> > > > > > > > >> > > On May 3, 1:33 am, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > You are right , I just like to keep things sorted as much as
> > > > > > > > >> possible .
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Actually I thought also about Vertex Vectors , but then
> > > > > > desired to
> > > > > > > > >> try this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > out .
> > > > > > > > >> > > > v1.normalize x2 IS TYPING MISTAKE :)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Why they commented normal?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks For Help
> > > > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Ken Railey <
> > > > > > ken.rai...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > So using the texture coordinates is a bit of an unorthodox
> > > > > > > > >> approach. I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > would take the cross product of two face edges and normalize
> > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > >> Beyond
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > that, I am not sure why to are normalizing v1 twice (or even
> > > > > > once,
> > > > > > > > >> just skip
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > it). Also, that call to new Vector3D() when initializing
> > > > > > normVect
> > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wasted, since it gets overwritten on the next line.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Also, after a quick glance at svn it seems like the Face
> > > > > > class had
> > > > > > > > >> a normal
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > at some point that is just commented out. Maybe try using
> > > > > > that?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Michael Iv <
> > > > > > explomas...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Hi Guys , I was looking for Normal Face Vector in Lite and
> > > > > > found
> > > > > > > > >> none . I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> tried to write my own . From my check It seems working ...
> > > > > > But I
> > > > > > > > >> would like
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> to get a confirmation from Math
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> experts here .
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> I used the tuvs to create 2 vectors on the Face plane, then
> > > > > > did
> > > > > > > > >> cross
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> product . Was that right ?
> Well, I think your code/math is over my head for now, but I get what
> you meant by parenting. I put the source object and the linked
> objects inside an ObjectContainer3D and everything works as expected.
> This should suit my needs for now. I've got a book on 3d math I
> ordered a little while ago that I haven't had time to dive into yet.
> Looks like this might be the catalyst for finally reading it.
> On Jun 25, 8:22 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm looking at your code now to see how I can apply it, but what do
> > you mean by "use parenting" to solve this problem? I'm open to
> > anything.
> > On Jun 25, 3:59 am, Shawn <sh...@moosemouse.com> wrote:
> > > I believe the problem is with the lookAt's upAxis. lookAt first points
> > > the z axis at the target and then tries to align a local up axis with
> > > the scene's Y_AXIS. So, as your faces move they keep adjusting to
> > > match their up axes with the scene's Y_AXIS.
> > > Unless you want to use parenting, the only way I know to fix this is
> > > to use an "up object" to aim the up axis at after the lookAt has been
> > > done. I have a test of an up object with a link to the code here:http://moosemouse.com/up-object-test.html
> > > I have been using this for something quite different so it may not
> > > immediately make sense to your project. But I *think* this is one way
> > > to fix your problem. It is late so I am calling it a night, but let me
> > > know if you would like further clarification.
> > > Best,
> > > Shawn
> > > On Jun 24, 8:08 pm, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I started on the alignment but I had a problem. For some reason the
> > > > planes keep rotating along the normals even after adding the lookAt()
> > > > call when I'm updating the linked planes. Can anyone who knows 3d
> > > > math better than me explain why this is happening, its in the link
> > > > above. Thanks, its driving me nuts and I can't figure it out.
> > > > On Jun 24, 12:04 pm, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Shoot, I forgot to mention I didn't do the alignment yet. I'm gonna
> > > > > make another demo soon using planes to show the alignment part.
> > > > > Should look pretty neat with just the planes and an invisible source
> > > > > mesh.
> > > > > On Jun 24, 10:44 am, Peter Kapelyan <flashn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Hmm it doesn't seem aligned to the face (those things should be turning too,
> > > > > > no?).
> > > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:00 AM, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > normals and face linking in away3dlite. The face linking is not a
> > > > > > > rolled up class like FaceLink in Away3D since the modifications were
> > > > > > > minimal. I did make changes to Face.as to include a normal and center
> > > > > > > at creation time, so as long as you don't deform the mesh, everything
> > > > > > > should work. If you do deform the mesh (like with as3mod or manually)
> > > > > > > you would just need to recalculate the normal and center for each face
> > > > > > > affected.
> > > > > > > One note, katopz mentioned that you could access a face's vertices
> > > > > > > through face.mesh.vertices, but I never got around to trying that. By
> > > > > > > doing that and maintaining your own vectors of face centers and
> > > > > > > normals, you could create this face linking code without making
> > > > > > > changes to Face.as, if you were so inclined.
> > > > > > > On Jun 23, 11:37 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Thanks for the insights katopz.
> > > > > > > > For anyone interested I have just got face linking (on steroids)
> > > > > > > > working in lite. All credit goes to the original FaceLink author as
> > > > > > > > 98% is just copied code from there. The rest is just minor
> > > > > > > > computational changes using Vector3D in the absence of Number3D. The
> > > > > > > > code I have now requires minor changes to Face.as, but I'm going to
> > > > > > > > see if I can also do it without changing the source and maintain a
> > > > > > > > good framerate. I'll post it up once I have it all ironed out.
> > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 3:38 am, katopz <kat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hey guys
> > > > > > > > > it's for speed reason, dot access is slower, so private _vertices is
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > bypass that dot and acting like referrer, you can saw bypass like this
> > > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > where in lite libs
> > > > > > > > > if you really want to access vertices you can use mesh.vertices and
> > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > faceIndex for each face, or mesh.faces[index]
> > > > > > > > > for normal comment out there is just under development for light
> > > > > > > somehow,
> > > > > > > > > it's not in my field btw
> > > > > > > > > hth
> > > > > > > > > On 22 June 2010 14:10, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I talked to Rob Bateman about this issue a few weeks ago in relation
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > another class. He said that some properties became private in order
> > > > > > > to not
> > > > > > > > > > be exposed for a regular user .(Still don't understand a reason for
> > > > > > > > > > this).But you can still access most of these using arcane namespace.
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:56 AM, savagelook <
> > > > > > > anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> While I'm still hoping for answers to my questions, I wanted to note
> > > > > > > > > >> that I uncommented the normals code in the faces in away3dlite and
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >> works well. I also was able to use it to put basic face linking
> > > > > > > > > >> functionality into lite. I'll post it up on my blog soon if any is
> > > > > > > > > >> interested.
> > > > > > > > > >> On Jun 21, 11:33 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > Also, why are the vertices of faces now private with no getters or
> > > > > > > > > >> > setters? Why were mapping coordinates used to calculate the
> > > > > > > normals
> > > > > > > > > >> > instead of the vertices like in Away3D 3.x?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > I would also like to know why the normals are commented out in
> > > > > > > > > >> > > away3dlite, as of the latest trunk revision (2613)? In the mean
> > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > >> > > I'm going to use them and see if they work as expected.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > On May 3, 1:33 am, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > You are right , I just like to keep things sorted as much as
> > > > > > > > > >> possible .
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Actually I thought also about Vertex Vectors , but then
> > > > > > > desired to
> > > > > > > > > >> try this
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > out .
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > v1.normalize x2 IS TYPING MISTAKE :)
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Why they commented normal?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks For Help
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Ken Railey <
> > > > > > > ken.rai...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > So using the texture coordinates is a bit of an unorthodox
> > > > > > > > > >> approach. I
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > would take the cross product of two face edges and normalize
> > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > >> Beyond
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > that, I am not sure why to are normalizing v1 twice (or even
> > > > > > > once,
> > > > > > > > > >> just skip
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > it). Also, that call to new Vector3D() when initializing
> > > > > > > normVect
> > > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > wasted, since it gets overwritten on the next line.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Also, after a quick glance at svn it seems like the Face
> > > > > > > class had
> > > > > > > > > >> a normal
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > at some point that is just commented out. Maybe try using
> > > > > > > that?
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Michael Iv <
> > > > > > > explomas...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Hi Guys , I was looking for Normal Face Vector in Lite and
> > > > > > > found
> > > > > > > > > >> none . I
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> tried to write my own . From my check It seems working ...
> > > > > > > But I
> > > > > > > > > >> would like
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> to get a confirmation from Math
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> experts here .
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> I used the tuvs to create 2 vectors on the Face plane, then
> > > > > > > did
> > > > > > > > > >> cross
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> product . Was that right ?
ok, there's my code using an ObjectContainer3D to keep the alignment
correct. I'm guessing there's a way to do it with upAxis, but it's
beyond me until I do some 3d math studying. Oh, and I left a little
something special for you peter ;)
On Jun 25, 11:36 am, Shawn <sh...@moosemouse.com> wrote:
> Yes, that is how I would have done it with parenting :)
> On Jun 25, 6:02 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, I think your code/math is over my head for now, but I get what
> > you meant by parenting. I put the source object and the linked
> > objects inside an ObjectContainer3D and everything works as expected.
> > This should suit my needs for now. I've got a book on 3d math I
> > ordered a little while ago that I haven't had time to dive into yet.
> > Looks like this might be the catalyst for finally reading it.
> > On Jun 25, 8:22 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm looking at your code now to see how I can apply it, but what do
> > > you mean by "use parenting" to solve this problem? I'm open to
> > > anything.
> > > On Jun 25, 3:59 am, Shawn <sh...@moosemouse.com> wrote:
> > > > I believe the problem is with the lookAt's upAxis. lookAt first points
> > > > the z axis at the target and then tries to align a local up axis with
> > > > the scene's Y_AXIS. So, as your faces move they keep adjusting to
> > > > match their up axes with the scene's Y_AXIS.
> > > > Unless you want to use parenting, the only way I know to fix this is
> > > > to use an "up object" to aim the up axis at after the lookAt has been
> > > > done. I have a test of an up object with a link to the code here:http://moosemouse.com/up-object-test.html
> > > > I have been using this for something quite different so it may not
> > > > immediately make sense to your project. But I *think* this is one way
> > > > to fix your problem. It is late so I am calling it a night, but let me
> > > > know if you would like further clarification.
> > > > Best,
> > > > Shawn
> > > > On Jun 24, 8:08 pm, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I started on the alignment but I had a problem. For some reason the
> > > > > planes keep rotating along the normals even after adding the lookAt()
> > > > > call when I'm updating the linked planes. Can anyone who knows 3d
> > > > > math better than me explain why this is happening, its in the link
> > > > > above. Thanks, its driving me nuts and I can't figure it out.
> > > > > On Jun 24, 12:04 pm, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Shoot, I forgot to mention I didn't do the alignment yet. I'm gonna
> > > > > > make another demo soon using planes to show the alignment part.
> > > > > > Should look pretty neat with just the planes and an invisible source
> > > > > > mesh.
> > > > > > On Jun 24, 10:44 am, Peter Kapelyan <flashn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hmm it doesn't seem aligned to the face (those things should be turning too,
> > > > > > > no?).
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:00 AM, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > normals and face linking in away3dlite. The face linking is not a
> > > > > > > > rolled up class like FaceLink in Away3D since the modifications were
> > > > > > > > minimal. I did make changes to Face.as to include a normal and center
> > > > > > > > at creation time, so as long as you don't deform the mesh, everything
> > > > > > > > should work. If you do deform the mesh (like with as3mod or manually)
> > > > > > > > you would just need to recalculate the normal and center for each face
> > > > > > > > affected.
> > > > > > > > One note, katopz mentioned that you could access a face's vertices
> > > > > > > > through face.mesh.vertices, but I never got around to trying that. By
> > > > > > > > doing that and maintaining your own vectors of face centers and
> > > > > > > > normals, you could create this face linking code without making
> > > > > > > > changes to Face.as, if you were so inclined.
> > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 11:37 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the insights katopz.
> > > > > > > > > For anyone interested I have just got face linking (on steroids)
> > > > > > > > > working in lite. All credit goes to the original FaceLink author as
> > > > > > > > > 98% is just copied code from there. The rest is just minor
> > > > > > > > > computational changes using Vector3D in the absence of Number3D. The
> > > > > > > > > code I have now requires minor changes to Face.as, but I'm going to
> > > > > > > > > see if I can also do it without changing the source and maintain a
> > > > > > > > > good framerate. I'll post it up once I have it all ironed out.
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 3:38 am, katopz <kat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hey guys
> > > > > > > > > > it's for speed reason, dot access is slower, so private _vertices is
> > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > bypass that dot and acting like referrer, you can saw bypass like this
> > > > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > > where in lite libs
> > > > > > > > > > if you really want to access vertices you can use mesh.vertices and
> > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > faceIndex for each face, or mesh.faces[index]
> > > > > > > > > > for normal comment out there is just under development for light
> > > > > > > > somehow,
> > > > > > > > > > it's not in my field btw
> > > > > > > > > > hth
> > > > > > > > > > On 22 June 2010 14:10, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > I talked to Rob Bateman about this issue a few weeks ago in relation
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > another class. He said that some properties became private in order
> > > > > > > > to not
> > > > > > > > > > > be exposed for a regular user .(Still don't understand a reason for
> > > > > > > > > > > this).But you can still access most of these using arcane namespace.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:56 AM, savagelook <
> > > > > > > > anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> While I'm still hoping for answers to my questions, I wanted to note
> > > > > > > > > > >> that I uncommented the normals code in the faces in away3dlite and
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > >> works well. I also was able to use it to put basic face linking
> > > > > > > > > > >> functionality into lite. I'll post it up on my blog soon if any is
> > > > > > > > > > >> interested.
> > > > > > > > > > >> On Jun 21, 11:33 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Also, why are the vertices of faces now private with no getters or
> > > > > > > > > > >> > setters? Why were mapping coordinates used to calculate the
> > > > > > > > normals
> > > > > > > > > > >> > instead of the vertices like in Away3D 3.x?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > I would also like to know why the normals are commented out in
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > away3dlite, as of the latest trunk revision (2613)? In the mean
> > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > I'm going to use them and see if they work as expected.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > On May 3, 1:33 am, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > You are right , I just like to keep things sorted as much as
> > > > > > > > > > >> possible .
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Actually I thought also about Vertex Vectors , but then
> > > > > > > > desired to
> > > > > > > > > > >> try this
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > out .
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > v1.normalize x2 IS TYPING MISTAKE :)
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Why they commented normal?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks For Help
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Ken Railey <
> > > > > > > > ken.rai...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > So using the texture coordinates is a bit of an unorthodox
> > > > > > > > > > >> approach. I
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > would take the cross product of two face edges and normalize
> > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > >> Beyond
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > that, I am not sure why to are normalizing v1 twice (or even
> > > > > > > > once,
> > > > > > > > > > >> just skip
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > it). Also, that call to new Vector3D() when initializing
> > > > > > > > normVect
> > > > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > wasted, since it gets overwritten on the next line.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Also, after a quick glance at svn it seems like the Face
> > > > > > > > class had
> > > > > > > > > > >> a normal
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > at some point that is just commented out. Maybe try using
> > > > > > > > that?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Michael Iv <
> > > > > > > > explomas...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Hi Guys , I was looking for Normal Face Vector in Lite and
> > > > > > > > found
> > > > > > > > > > >> none . I
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> tried to write my own . From my check It seems working ...
> > > > > > > > But I
> > > > > > > > > > >> would like
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> to get a confirmation from Math
ObjectContainer3D approach is easy, but it will slow thing down a bit, if you seek for better speed, you can try apply matrix transforms directly to it vertices (like freeze transforms prev mail) just like ObjectContainer3D did this automatically while render loop get rid of ObjectContainer3D will reduce look up time obviously
you can learn this approach via Sprite3D, credit by mr. incredible Rob :)
fyi : it's a bit complex, try it only if you want to learn, need more fps or more headache ;)
hth
On 26 June 2010 10:09, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ok, there's my code using an ObjectContainer3D to keep the alignment > correct. I'm guessing there's a way to do it with upAxis, but it's > beyond me until I do some 3d math studying. Oh, and I left a little > something special for you peter ;)
> On Jun 25, 11:36 am, Shawn <sh...@moosemouse.com> wrote: > > Yes, that is how I would have done it with parenting :)
> > On Jun 25, 6:02 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Well, I think your code/math is over my head for now, but I get what > > > you meant by parenting. I put the source object and the linked > > > objects inside an ObjectContainer3D and everything works as expected. > > > This should suit my needs for now. I've got a book on 3d math I > > > ordered a little while ago that I haven't had time to dive into yet. > > > Looks like this might be the catalyst for finally reading it.
> > > On Jun 25, 8:22 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm looking at your code now to see how I can apply it, but what do > > > > you mean by "use parenting" to solve this problem? I'm open to > > > > anything.
> > > > On Jun 25, 3:59 am, Shawn <sh...@moosemouse.com> wrote:
> > > > > I believe the problem is with the lookAt's upAxis. lookAt first > points > > > > > the z axis at the target and then tries to align a local up axis > with > > > > > the scene's Y_AXIS. So, as your faces move they keep adjusting to > > > > > match their up axes with the scene's Y_AXIS.
> > > > > Unless you want to use parenting, the only way I know to fix this > is > > > > > to use an "up object" to aim the up axis at after the lookAt has > been > > > > > done. I have a test of an up object with a link to the code here: > http://moosemouse.com/up-object-test.html
> > > > > I have been using this for something quite different so it may not > > > > > immediately make sense to your project. But I *think* this is one > way > > > > > to fix your problem. It is late so I am calling it a night, but let > me > > > > > know if you would like further clarification.
> > > > > Best, > > > > > Shawn
> > > > > On Jun 24, 8:08 pm, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > > > > > I started on the alignment but I had a problem. For some reason > the > > > > > > planes keep rotating along the normals even after adding the > lookAt() > > > > > > call when I'm updating the linked planes. Can anyone who knows > 3d > > > > > > math better than me explain why this is happening, its in the > link > > > > > > above. Thanks, its driving me nuts and I can't figure it out.
> > > > > > On Jun 24, 12:04 pm, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > > > > > > Shoot, I forgot to mention I didn't do the alignment yet. I'm > gonna > > > > > > > make another demo soon using planes to show the alignment part. > > > > > > > Should look pretty neat with just the planes and an invisible > source > > > > > > > mesh.
> > > > > > > On Jun 24, 10:44 am, Peter Kapelyan <flashn...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hmm it doesn't seem aligned to the face (those things should > be turning too, > > > > > > > > no?).
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:00 AM, savagelook < > anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > normals and face linking in away3dlite. The face linking > is not a > > > > > > > > > rolled up class like FaceLink in Away3D since the > modifications were > > > > > > > > > minimal. I did make changes to Face.as to include a normal > and center > > > > > > > > > at creation time, so as long as you don't deform the mesh, > everything > > > > > > > > > should work. If you do deform the mesh (like with as3mod > or manually) > > > > > > > > > you would just need to recalculate the normal and center > for each face > > > > > > > > > affected.
> > > > > > > > > One note, katopz mentioned that you could access a face's > vertices > > > > > > > > > through face.mesh.vertices, but I never got around to > trying that. By > > > > > > > > > doing that and maintaining your own vectors of face centers > and > > > > > > > > > normals, you could create this face linking code without > making > > > > > > > > > changes to Face.as, if you were so inclined.
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 11:37 am, savagelook < > anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the insights katopz.
> > > > > > > > > > For anyone interested I have just got face linking (on > steroids) > > > > > > > > > > working in lite. All credit goes to the original > FaceLink author as > > > > > > > > > > 98% is just copied code from there. The rest is just > minor > > > > > > > > > > computational changes using Vector3D in the absence of > Number3D. The > > > > > > > > > > code I have now requires minor changes to Face.as, but > I'm going to > > > > > > > > > > see if I can also do it without changing the source and > maintain a > > > > > > > > > > good framerate. I'll post it up once I have it all > ironed out.
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 3:38 am, katopz <kat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hey guys
> > > > > > > > > > > it's for speed reason, dot access is slower, so private > _vertices is > > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > > > bypass that dot and acting like referrer, you can saw > bypass like this > > > > > > > > > every > > > > > > > > > > > where in lite libs
> > > > > > > > > > > if you really want to access vertices you can use > mesh.vertices and > > > > > > > > > provide > > > > > > > > > > > faceIndex for each face, or mesh.faces[index]
> > > > > > > > > > > for normal comment out there is just under development > for light > > > > > > > > > somehow, > > > > > > > > > > > it's not in my field btw
> > > > > > > > > > > hth
> > > > > > > > > > > On 22 June 2010 14:10, Michael Iv < > explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > I talked to Rob Bateman about this issue a few weeks > ago in relation > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > another class. He said that some properties became > private in order > > > > > > > > > to not > > > > > > > > > > > > be exposed for a regular user .(Still don't > understand a reason for > > > > > > > > > > > > this).But you can still access most of these using > arcane namespace.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> While I'm still hoping for answers to my questions, > I wanted to note > > > > > > > > > > > >> that I uncommented the normals code in the faces in > away3dlite and > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > >> works well. I also was able to use it to put basic > face linking > > > > > > > > > > > >> functionality into lite. I'll post it up on my blog > soon if any is > > > > > > > > > > > >> interested.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jun 21, 11:33 am, savagelook < > anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Also, why are the vertices of faces now private > with no getters or > > > > > > > > > > > >> > setters? Why were mapping coordinates used to > calculate the > > > > > > > > > normals > > > > > > > > > > > >> > instead of the vertices like in Away3D 3.x?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > I would also like to know why the normals are > commented out in > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > away3dlite, as of the latest trunk revision > (2613)? In the mean > > > > > > > > > time > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > I'm going to use them and see if they work as > expected.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > On May 3, 1:33 am, Michael Iv < > explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > You are right , I just like to keep things > sorted as much as > > > > > > > > > > > >> possible . > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Actually I thought also about Vertex Vectors , > but then > > > > > > > > > desired to > > > > > > > > > > > >> try this > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > out . > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > v1.normalize x2 IS TYPING MISTAKE :) > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Why they commented normal?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks For Help
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Ken Railey < > > > > > > > > > ken.rai...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > So using the texture coordinates is a bit of > an unorthodox > > > > > > > > > > > >> approach. I > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > would take the cross product of two face > edges and normalize > > > > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > > >> Beyond > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > that, I am not sure why to are normalizing > v1 twice (or even > > > > > > > > > once, > > > > > > > > > > > >> just skip > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > it). Also, that call to new Vector3D() when > initializing > > > > > > > > > normVect > > > > > > > > > > > >> is > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > wasted, since it gets overwritten on the > next line.
However, I don't think Fabrices code works right 100% of the time. When a certain face in an animation faces a certain way (opposite? etc), the link seems to rotate the object the wrong way.This may be one of the hardest things to get right, since it's pretty hard to test.
The coolest thing about this feature to me is the ability to attached a gun or backpack on a moving model for a game. You can then have tons of separate models made that just magically "stick" to where they are supposed to be. And there is the problem, it seems more like magic than something that is possible :O
I have seen this feature in other 3d engines, not sure, but I think I usually saw it as attach to vertice, not face.
Anyways I wanted to congratulate you for getting stuff to work so far, it looks like it could be really handy!
-Peter "Party" Pooper :P
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:09 PM, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> ok, there's my code using an ObjectContainer3D to keep the alignment > correct. I'm guessing there's a way to do it with upAxis, but it's > beyond me until I do some 3d math studying. Oh, and I left a little > something special for you peter ;)
> On Jun 25, 11:36 am, Shawn <sh...@moosemouse.com> wrote: > > Yes, that is how I would have done it with parenting :)
> > On Jun 25, 6:02 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Well, I think your code/math is over my head for now, but I get what > > > you meant by parenting. I put the source object and the linked > > > objects inside an ObjectContainer3D and everything works as expected. > > > This should suit my needs for now. I've got a book on 3d math I > > > ordered a little while ago that I haven't had time to dive into yet. > > > Looks like this might be the catalyst for finally reading it.
> > > On Jun 25, 8:22 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm looking at your code now to see how I can apply it, but what do > > > > you mean by "use parenting" to solve this problem? I'm open to > > > > anything.
> > > > On Jun 25, 3:59 am, Shawn <sh...@moosemouse.com> wrote:
> > > > > I believe the problem is with the lookAt's upAxis. lookAt first > points > > > > > the z axis at the target and then tries to align a local up axis > with > > > > > the scene's Y_AXIS. So, as your faces move they keep adjusting to > > > > > match their up axes with the scene's Y_AXIS.
> > > > > Unless you want to use parenting, the only way I know to fix this > is > > > > > to use an "up object" to aim the up axis at after the lookAt has > been > > > > > done. I have a test of an up object with a link to the code here: > http://moosemouse.com/up-object-test.html
> > > > > I have been using this for something quite different so it may not > > > > > immediately make sense to your project. But I *think* this is one > way > > > > > to fix your problem. It is late so I am calling it a night, but let > me > > > > > know if you would like further clarification.
> > > > > Best, > > > > > Shawn
> > > > > On Jun 24, 8:08 pm, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > > > > > I started on the alignment but I had a problem. For some reason > the > > > > > > planes keep rotating along the normals even after adding the > lookAt() > > > > > > call when I'm updating the linked planes. Can anyone who knows > 3d > > > > > > math better than me explain why this is happening, its in the > link > > > > > > above. Thanks, its driving me nuts and I can't figure it out.
> > > > > > On Jun 24, 12:04 pm, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > > > > > > Shoot, I forgot to mention I didn't do the alignment yet. I'm > gonna > > > > > > > make another demo soon using planes to show the alignment part. > > > > > > > Should look pretty neat with just the planes and an invisible > source > > > > > > > mesh.
> > > > > > > On Jun 24, 10:44 am, Peter Kapelyan <flashn...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hmm it doesn't seem aligned to the face (those things should > be turning too, > > > > > > > > no?).
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:00 AM, savagelook < > anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > normals and face linking in away3dlite. The face linking > is not a > > > > > > > > > rolled up class like FaceLink in Away3D since the > modifications were > > > > > > > > > minimal. I did make changes to Face.as to include a normal > and center > > > > > > > > > at creation time, so as long as you don't deform the mesh, > everything > > > > > > > > > should work. If you do deform the mesh (like with as3mod > or manually) > > > > > > > > > you would just need to recalculate the normal and center > for each face > > > > > > > > > affected.
> > > > > > > > > One note, katopz mentioned that you could access a face's > vertices > > > > > > > > > through face.mesh.vertices, but I never got around to > trying that. By > > > > > > > > > doing that and maintaining your own vectors of face centers > and > > > > > > > > > normals, you could create this face linking code without > making > > > > > > > > > changes to Face.as, if you were so inclined.
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 11:37 am, savagelook < > anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the insights katopz.
> > > > > > > > > > For anyone interested I have just got face linking (on > steroids) > > > > > > > > > > working in lite. All credit goes to the original > FaceLink author as > > > > > > > > > > 98% is just copied code from there. The rest is just > minor > > > > > > > > > > computational changes using Vector3D in the absence of > Number3D. The > > > > > > > > > > code I have now requires minor changes to Face.as, but > I'm going to > > > > > > > > > > see if I can also do it without changing the source and > maintain a > > > > > > > > > > good framerate. I'll post it up once I have it all > ironed out.
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 3:38 am, katopz <kat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hey guys
> > > > > > > > > > > it's for speed reason, dot access is slower, so private > _vertices is > > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > > > bypass that dot and acting like referrer, you can saw > bypass like this > > > > > > > > > every > > > > > > > > > > > where in lite libs
> > > > > > > > > > > if you really want to access vertices you can use > mesh.vertices and > > > > > > > > > provide > > > > > > > > > > > faceIndex for each face, or mesh.faces[index]
> > > > > > > > > > > for normal comment out there is just under development > for light > > > > > > > > > somehow, > > > > > > > > > > > it's not in my field btw
> > > > > > > > > > > hth
> > > > > > > > > > > On 22 June 2010 14:10, Michael Iv < > explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > I talked to Rob Bateman about this issue a few weeks > ago in relation > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > another class. He said that some properties became > private in order > > > > > > > > > to not > > > > > > > > > > > > be exposed for a regular user .(Still don't > understand a reason for > > > > > > > > > > > > this).But you can still access most of these using > arcane namespace.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> While I'm still hoping for answers to my questions, > I wanted to note > > > > > > > > > > > >> that I uncommented the normals code in the faces in > away3dlite and > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > >> works well. I also was able to use it to put basic > face linking > > > > > > > > > > > >> functionality into lite. I'll post it up on my blog > soon if any is > > > > > > > > > > > >> interested.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jun 21, 11:33 am, savagelook < > anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Also, why are the vertices of faces now private > with no getters or > > > > > > > > > > > >> > setters? Why were mapping coordinates used to > calculate the > > > > > > > > > normals > > > > > > > > > > > >> > instead of the vertices like in Away3D 3.x?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > I would also like to know why the normals are > commented out in > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > away3dlite, as of the latest trunk revision > (2613)? In the mean > > > > > > > > > time > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > I'm going to use them and see if they work as > expected.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > On May 3, 1:33 am, Michael Iv < > explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > You are right , I just like to keep things > sorted as much as > > > > > > > > > > > >> possible . > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Actually I thought also about Vertex Vectors , > but then > > > > > > > > > desired to > > > > > > > > > > > >> try this > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > out . > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > v1.normalize x2 IS TYPING MISTAKE :) > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Why they commented normal?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks For Help
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Ken Railey < > > > > > > > > > ken.rai...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > So using the texture coordinates is a
thats why the offset is made for, you can pass a negative offset as well, but this also means that in certain cases the object would look like if its inverted.
> When a certain face in an animation faces a certain way (opposite? etc), the link seems to rotate the object the wrong way.
Problem here is more of a visual perception kind than a math one I think.
> This may be one of the hardest things to get right, since it's pretty hard to test.
actually, it remembers me I started wrote a "face" explorer just for this purpose a while ago for Prefab for a personal project, but never finsihed it. may be I will as it seems the class is being used fairly often.
> The coolest thing about this feature to me is the ability to attached a gun or backpack on a moving model for a game.
I've seen already pretty creative uses of it, but yes, tmp attached items such as guns while keeping independant object behavior were the reasons why I wrote it in the first place :)
Fabrice
On Jun 26, 2010, at 3:52 PM, Peter Kapelyan wrote:
> However, I don't think Fabrices code works right 100% of the time. When a certain face in an animation faces a certain way (opposite? etc), the link seems to rotate the object the wrong way.This may be one of the hardest things to get right, since it's pretty hard to test.
> The coolest thing about this feature to me is the ability to attached a gun or backpack on a moving model for a game. You can then have tons of separate models made that just magically "stick" to where they are supposed to be. And there is the problem, it seems more like magic than something that is possible :O
> I have seen this feature in other 3d engines, not sure, but I think I usually saw it as attach to vertice, not face.
> Anyways I wanted to congratulate you for getting stuff to work so far, it looks like it could be really handy!
> ok, there's my code using an ObjectContainer3D to keep the alignment > correct. I'm guessing there's a way to do it with upAxis, but it's > beyond me until I do some 3d math studying. Oh, and I left a little > something special for you peter ;)
> On Jun 25, 11:36 am, Shawn <sh...@moosemouse.com> wrote: > > Yes, that is how I would have done it with parenting :)
> > On Jun 25, 6:02 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Well, I think your code/math is over my head for now, but I get what > > > you meant by parenting. I put the source object and the linked > > > objects inside an ObjectContainer3D and everything works as expected. > > > This should suit my needs for now. I've got a book on 3d math I > > > ordered a little while ago that I haven't had time to dive into yet. > > > Looks like this might be the catalyst for finally reading it.
> > > On Jun 25, 8:22 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm looking at your code now to see how I can apply it, but what do > > > > you mean by "use parenting" to solve this problem? I'm open to > > > > anything.
> > > > On Jun 25, 3:59 am, Shawn <sh...@moosemouse.com> wrote:
> > > > > I believe the problem is with the lookAt's upAxis. lookAt first points > > > > > the z axis at the target and then tries to align a local up axis with > > > > > the scene's Y_AXIS. So, as your faces move they keep adjusting to > > > > > match their up axes with the scene's Y_AXIS.
> > > > > Unless you want to use parenting, the only way I know to fix this is > > > > > to use an "up object" to aim the up axis at after the lookAt has been > > > > > done. I have a test of an up object with a link to the code here:http://moosemouse.com/up-object-test.html
> > > > > I have been using this for something quite different so it may not > > > > > immediately make sense to your project. But I *think* this is one way > > > > > to fix your problem. It is late so I am calling it a night, but let me > > > > > know if you would like further clarification.
> > > > > Best, > > > > > Shawn
> > > > > On Jun 24, 8:08 pm, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I started on the alignment but I had a problem. For some reason the > > > > > > planes keep rotating along the normals even after adding the lookAt() > > > > > > call when I'm updating the linked planes. Can anyone who knows 3d > > > > > > math better than me explain why this is happening, its in the link > > > > > > above. Thanks, its driving me nuts and I can't figure it out.
> > > > > > On Jun 24, 12:04 pm, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Shoot, I forgot to mention I didn't do the alignment yet. I'm gonna > > > > > > > make another demo soon using planes to show the alignment part. > > > > > > > Should look pretty neat with just the planes and an invisible source > > > > > > > mesh.
> > > > > > > On Jun 24, 10:44 am, Peter Kapelyan <flashn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hmm it doesn't seem aligned to the face (those things should be turning too, > > > > > > > > no?).
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:00 AM, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > normals and face linking in away3dlite. The face linking is not a > > > > > > > > > rolled up class like FaceLink in Away3D since the modifications were > > > > > > > > > minimal. I did make changes to Face.as to include a normal and center > > > > > > > > > at creation time, so as long as you don't deform the mesh, everything > > > > > > > > > should work. If you do deform the mesh (like with as3mod or manually) > > > > > > > > > you would just need to recalculate the normal and center for each face > > > > > > > > > affected.
> > > > > > > > > One note, katopz mentioned that you could access a face's vertices > > > > > > > > > through face.mesh.vertices, but I never got around to trying that. By > > > > > > > > > doing that and maintaining your own vectors of face centers and > > > > > > > > > normals, you could create this face linking code without making > > > > > > > > > changes to Face.as, if you were so inclined.
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 11:37 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the insights katopz.
> > > > > > > > > > For anyone interested I have just got face linking (on steroids) > > > > > > > > > > working in lite. All credit goes to the original FaceLink author as > > > > > > > > > > 98% is just copied code from there. The rest is just minor > > > > > > > > > > computational changes using Vector3D in the absence of Number3D. The > > > > > > > > > > code I have now requires minor changes to Face.as, but I'm going to > > > > > > > > > > see if I can also do it without changing the source and maintain a > > > > > > > > > > good framerate. I'll post it up once I have it all ironed out.
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 3:38 am, katopz <kat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hey guys
> > > > > > > > > > > it's for speed reason, dot access is slower, so private _vertices is > > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > > > bypass that dot and acting like referrer, you can saw bypass like this > > > > > > > > > every > > > > > > > > > > > where in lite libs
> > > > > > > > > > > if you really want to access vertices you can use mesh.vertices and > > > > > > > > > provide > > > > > > > > > > > faceIndex for each face, or mesh.faces[index]
> > > > > > > > > > > for normal comment out there is just under development for light > > > > > > > > > somehow, > > > > > > > > > > > it's not in my field btw
> > > > > > > > > > > hth
> > > > > > > > > > > On 22 June 2010 14:10, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > I talked to Rob Bateman about this issue a few weeks ago in relation > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > another class. He said that some properties became private in order > > > > > > > > > to not > > > > > > > > > > > > be exposed for a regular user .(Still don't understand a reason for > > > > > > > > > > > > this).But you can still access most of these using arcane namespace.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> While I'm still hoping for answers to my questions, I wanted to note > > > > > > > > > > > >> that I uncommented the normals code in the faces in away3dlite and > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > >> works well. I also was able to use it to put basic face linking > > > > > > > > > > > >> functionality into lite. I'll post it up on my blog soon if any is > > > > > > > > > > > >> interested.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jun 21, 11:33 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Also, why are the vertices of faces now private with no getters or > > > > > > > > > > > >> > setters? Why were mapping coordinates used to calculate the > > > > > > > > > normals > > > > > > > > > > > >> > instead of the vertices like in Away3D 3.x?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > I would also like to know why the normals are commented out in > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > away3dlite, as of the latest trunk
I am probably opening myself up for my own Clark Griswold moment, but
I took a shot at the FaceLinking in away3dlite. I tweaked the
FaceLink.as from away3D the best I know how to get it to work with
away3Dlite. I am not an expert programmer, but I *think* it works...
> thats why the offset is made for, you can pass a negative offset as well,
> but this also means that in certain cases the object would look like if its inverted.
> > When a certain face in an animation faces a certain way (opposite? etc), the link seems to rotate the object the wrong way.
> Problem here is more of a visual perception kind than a math one I think.
> > This may be one of the hardest things to get right, since it's pretty hard to test.
> actually, it remembers me I started wrote a "face" explorer just for this purpose a while ago for Prefab for a personal project, but never finsihed it.
> may be I will as it seems the class is being used fairly often.
> > The coolest thing about this feature to me is the ability to attached a gun or backpack on a moving model for a game.
> I've seen already pretty creative uses of it, but yes, tmp attached items such as guns while keeping independant object behavior were
> the reasons why I wrote it in the first place :)
> Fabrice
> On Jun 26, 2010, at 3:52 PM, Peter Kapelyan wrote:
> > Hmmm,
> > I don't know if to take that as a compliment or if thems fightin' words :O
> > However, I don't think Fabrices code works right 100% of the time. When a certain face in an animation faces a certain way (opposite? etc), the link seems to rotate the object the wrong way.This may be one of the hardest things to get right, since it's pretty hard to test.
> > The coolest thing about this feature to me is the ability to attached a gun or backpack on a moving model for a game. You can then have tons of separate models made that just magically "stick" to where they are supposed to be. And there is the problem, it seems more like magic than something that is possible :O
> > I have seen this feature in other 3d engines, not sure, but I think I usually saw it as attach to vertice, not face.
> > Anyways I wanted to congratulate you for getting stuff to work so far, it looks like it could be really handy!
> > ok, there's my code using an ObjectContainer3D to keep the alignment
> > correct. I'm guessing there's a way to do it with upAxis, but it's
> > beyond me until I do some 3d math studying. Oh, and I left a little
> > something special for you peter ;)
> > On Jun 25, 11:36 am, Shawn <sh...@moosemouse.com> wrote:
> > > Yes, that is how I would have done it with parenting :)
> > > On Jun 25, 6:02 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Well, I think your code/math is over my head for now, but I get what
> > > > you meant by parenting. I put the source object and the linked
> > > > objects inside an ObjectContainer3D and everything works as expected.
> > > > This should suit my needs for now. I've got a book on 3d math I
> > > > ordered a little while ago that I haven't had time to dive into yet.
> > > > Looks like this might be the catalyst for finally reading it.
> > > > On Jun 25, 8:22 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I'm looking at your code now to see how I can apply it, but what do
> > > > > you mean by "use parenting" to solve this problem? I'm open to
> > > > > anything.
> > > > > On Jun 25, 3:59 am, Shawn <sh...@moosemouse.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I believe the problem is with the lookAt's upAxis. lookAt first points
> > > > > > the z axis at the target and then tries to align a local up axis with
> > > > > > the scene's Y_AXIS. So, as your faces move they keep adjusting to
> > > > > > match their up axes with the scene's Y_AXIS.
> > > > > > Unless you want to use parenting, the only way I know to fix this is
> > > > > > to use an "up object" to aim the up axis at after the lookAt has been
> > > > > > done. I have a test of an up object with a link to the code here:http://moosemouse.com/up-object-test.html
> > > > > > I have been using this for something quite different so it may not
> > > > > > immediately make sense to your project. But I *think* this is one way
> > > > > > to fix your problem. It is late so I am calling it a night, but let me
> > > > > > know if you would like further clarification.
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Shawn
> > > > > > On Jun 24, 8:08 pm, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > I started on the alignment but I had a problem. For some reason the
> > > > > > > planes keep rotating along the normals even after adding the lookAt()
> > > > > > > call when I'm updating the linked planes. Can anyone who knows 3d
> > > > > > > math better than me explain why this is happening, its in the link
> > > > > > > above. Thanks, its driving me nuts and I can't figure it out.
> > > > > > > On Jun 24, 12:04 pm, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Shoot, I forgot to mention I didn't do the alignment yet. I'm gonna
> > > > > > > > make another demo soon using planes to show the alignment part.
> > > > > > > > Should look pretty neat with just the planes and an invisible source
> > > > > > > > mesh.
> > > > > > > > On Jun 24, 10:44 am, Peter Kapelyan <flashn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hmm it doesn't seem aligned to the face (those things should be turning too,
> > > > > > > > > no?).
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:00 AM, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > normals and face linking in away3dlite. The face linking is not a
> > > > > > > > > > rolled up class like FaceLink in Away3D since the modifications were
> > > > > > > > > > minimal. I did make changes to Face.as to include a normal and center
> > > > > > > > > > at creation time, so as long as you don't deform the mesh, everything
> > > > > > > > > > should work. If you do deform the mesh (like with as3mod or manually)
> > > > > > > > > > you would just need to recalculate the normal and center for each face
> > > > > > > > > > affected.
> > > > > > > > > > One note, katopz mentioned that you could access a face's vertices
> > > > > > > > > > through face.mesh.vertices, but I never got around to trying that. By
> > > > > > > > > > doing that and maintaining your own vectors of face centers and
> > > > > > > > > > normals, you could create this face linking code without making
> > > > > > > > > > changes to Face.as, if you were so inclined.
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 11:37 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the insights katopz.
> > > > > > > > > > > For anyone interested I have just got face linking (on steroids)
> > > > > > > > > > > working in lite. All credit goes to the original FaceLink author as
> > > > > > > > > > > 98% is just copied code from there. The rest is just minor
> > > > > > > > > > > computational changes using Vector3D in the absence of Number3D. The
> > > > > > > > > > > code I have now requires minor changes to Face.as, but I'm going to
> > > > > > > > > > > see if I can also do it without changing the source and maintain a
> > > > > > > > > > > good framerate. I'll post it up once I have it all ironed out.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 3:38 am, katopz <kat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hey guys
> > > > > > > > > > > > it's for speed reason, dot access is slower, so private _vertices is
> > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > > bypass that dot and acting like referrer, you can saw bypass like this
> > > > > > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > > > > where in lite libs
> > > > > > > > > > > > if you really want to access vertices you can use mesh.vertices and
> > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > faceIndex for each face, or mesh.faces[index]
> > > > > > > > > > > > for normal comment out there is just under development for light
> > > > > > > > > > somehow,
> > > > > > > > > > > > it's not in my field btw
> > > > > > > > > > > > hth
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 22 June 2010 14:10, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I talked to Rob Bateman about this issue a few weeks ago in relation
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > another class. He said that some properties became private in order
> > > > > > > > > > to not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be exposed for a regular user .(Still don't understand a reason for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this).But you can still access most of these using arcane namespace.
Oy, I'm out of my element here! Thanks guys for the patience and
guidance. My notes are just the ramblings of a programmer not
particularly proficient in 3d programming or 3d math, just one thats
finds it all very cool.
On Jun 27, 3:39 am, Shawn <sh...@moosemouse.com> wrote:
> I am probably opening myself up for my own Clark Griswold moment, but
> I took a shot at the FaceLinking in away3dlite. I tweaked the
> FaceLink.as from away3D the best I know how to get it to work with
> away3Dlite. I am not an expert programmer, but I *think* it works...
> P.S. - I don't really know the protocols for tweaking someone else's
> code, so if I have done something uncool please let me know.
> On Jun 26, 12:15 pm, Fabrice3D <fabric...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > thats why the offset is made for, you can pass a negative offset as well,
> > but this also means that in certain cases the object would look like if its inverted.
> > > When a certain face in an animation faces a certain way (opposite? etc), the link seems to rotate the object the wrong way.
> > Problem here is more of a visual perception kind than a math one I think.
> > > This may be one of the hardest things to get right, since it's pretty hard to test.
> > actually, it remembers me I started wrote a "face" explorer just for this purpose a while ago for Prefab for a personal project, but never finsihed it.
> > may be I will as it seems the class is being used fairly often.
> > > The coolest thing about this feature to me is the ability to attached a gun or backpack on a moving model for a game.
> > I've seen already pretty creative uses of it, but yes, tmp attached items such as guns while keeping independant object behavior were
> > the reasons why I wrote it in the first place :)
> > Fabrice
> > On Jun 26, 2010, at 3:52 PM, Peter Kapelyan wrote:
> > > Hmmm,
> > > I don't know if to take that as a compliment or if thems fightin' words :O
> > > However, I don't think Fabrices code works right 100% of the time. When a certain face in an animation faces a certain way (opposite? etc), the link seems to rotate the object the wrong way.This may be one of the hardest things to get right, since it's pretty hard to test.
> > > The coolest thing about this feature to me is the ability to attached a gun or backpack on a moving model for a game. You can then have tons of separate models made that just magically "stick" to where they are supposed to be. And there is the problem, it seems more like magic than something that is possible :O
> > > I have seen this feature in other 3d engines, not sure, but I think I usually saw it as attach to vertice, not face.
> > > Anyways I wanted to congratulate you for getting stuff to work so far, it looks like it could be really handy!
> > > ok, there's my code using an ObjectContainer3D to keep the alignment
> > > correct. I'm guessing there's a way to do it with upAxis, but it's
> > > beyond me until I do some 3d math studying. Oh, and I left a little
> > > something special for you peter ;)
> > > On Jun 25, 11:36 am, Shawn <sh...@moosemouse.com> wrote:
> > > > Yes, that is how I would have done it with parenting :)
> > > > On Jun 25, 6:02 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Well, I think your code/math is over my head for now, but I get what
> > > > > you meant by parenting. I put the source object and the linked
> > > > > objects inside an ObjectContainer3D and everything works as expected.
> > > > > This should suit my needs for now. I've got a book on 3d math I
> > > > > ordered a little while ago that I haven't had time to dive into yet.
> > > > > Looks like this might be the catalyst for finally reading it.
> > > > > On Jun 25, 8:22 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I'm looking at your code now to see how I can apply it, but what do
> > > > > > you mean by "use parenting" to solve this problem? I'm open to
> > > > > > anything.
> > > > > > On Jun 25, 3:59 am, Shawn <sh...@moosemouse.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > I believe the problem is with the lookAt's upAxis. lookAt first points
> > > > > > > the z axis at the target and then tries to align a local up axis with
> > > > > > > the scene's Y_AXIS. So, as your faces move they keep adjusting to
> > > > > > > match their up axes with the scene's Y_AXIS.
> > > > > > > Unless you want to use parenting, the only way I know to fix this is
> > > > > > > to use an "up object" to aim the up axis at after the lookAt has been
> > > > > > > done. I have a test of an up object with a link to the code here:http://moosemouse.com/up-object-test.html
> > > > > > > I have been using this for something quite different so it may not
> > > > > > > immediately make sense to your project. But I *think* this is one way
> > > > > > > to fix your problem. It is late so I am calling it a night, but let me
> > > > > > > know if you would like further clarification.
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Shawn
> > > > > > > On Jun 24, 8:08 pm, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I started on the alignment but I had a problem. For some reason the
> > > > > > > > planes keep rotating along the normals even after adding the lookAt()
> > > > > > > > call when I'm updating the linked planes. Can anyone who knows 3d
> > > > > > > > math better than me explain why this is happening, its in the link
> > > > > > > > above. Thanks, its driving me nuts and I can't figure it out.
> > > > > > > > On Jun 24, 12:04 pm, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Shoot, I forgot to mention I didn't do the alignment yet. I'm gonna
> > > > > > > > > make another demo soon using planes to show the alignment part.
> > > > > > > > > Should look pretty neat with just the planes and an invisible source
> > > > > > > > > mesh.
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 24, 10:44 am, Peter Kapelyan <flashn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hmm it doesn't seem aligned to the face (those things should be turning too,
> > > > > > > > > > no?).
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:00 AM, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > normals and face linking in away3dlite. The face linking is not a
> > > > > > > > > > > rolled up class like FaceLink in Away3D since the modifications were
> > > > > > > > > > > minimal. I did make changes to Face.as to include a normal and center
> > > > > > > > > > > at creation time, so as long as you don't deform the mesh, everything
> > > > > > > > > > > should work. If you do deform the mesh (like with as3mod or manually)
> > > > > > > > > > > you would just need to recalculate the normal and center for each face
> > > > > > > > > > > affected.
> > > > > > > > > > > One note, katopz mentioned that you could access a face's vertices
> > > > > > > > > > > through face.mesh.vertices, but I never got around to trying that. By
> > > > > > > > > > > doing that and maintaining your own vectors of face centers and
> > > > > > > > > > > normals, you could create this face linking code without making
> > > > > > > > > > > changes to Face.as, if you were so inclined.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 11:37 am, savagelook <anthony.lukasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the insights katopz.
> > > > > > > > > > > > For anyone interested I have just got face linking (on steroids)
> > > > > > > > > > > > working in lite. All credit goes to the original FaceLink author as
> > > > > > > > > > > > 98% is just copied code from there. The rest is just minor
> > > > > > > > > > > > computational changes using Vector3D in the absence of Number3D. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > code I have now requires minor changes to Face.as, but I'm going to
> > > > > > > > > > > > see if I can also do it without changing the source and maintain a
> > > > > > > > > > > > good framerate. I'll post it up once I have it all ironed out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 3:38 am, katopz <kat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey guys
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it's for speed reason, dot access is slower, so private _vertices is
> > > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > bypass that dot and acting like referrer, you can saw bypass like this
> > > > > > > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > > > > > where in lite libs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > if you really want to access vertices you can use mesh.vertices and
> > > > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > faceIndex for each face, or mesh.faces[index]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for normal comment out there is just under development for light
> > > > > > > > > > > somehow,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it's not in my field btw
> > > > > > > > > > > > > hth
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 22 June 2010 14:10, Michael Iv <explomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I talked to Rob Bateman about this issue a few weeks ago in relation
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > another class. He said that some
