sketchucation logo sketchucation
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. zitoun
    ℹ️ Licensed Extensions | FredoBatch, ElevationProfile, FredoSketch, LayOps, MatSim and Pic2Shape will require license from Sept 1st More Info
    Z
    Offline
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 2
    • Posts 23
    • Groups 1

    zitoun

    @zitoun

    10
    Reputation
    1
    Profile views
    23
    Posts
    0
    Followers
    0
    Following
    Joined
    Last Online

    zitoun Unfollow Follow
    registered-users

    Latest posts made by zitoun

    • RE: Transformations

      Another thing: angle_between only gives absolute angles.
      If you need oriented angles, you might need something like

      def angBtw(v1, v2)
      	u1 = v1.normalize
      	u2 = v2.normalize
      	a = u1.angle_between u2
      	if ( u1.cross u2 ).dot( Z_AXIS ) > 0
      		return a
      	else
      		return -a
      	end
      end
      

      Note 1: normalization is used only because there seems to be some trouble with angle_between for small values...
      Note 2: I took Z_AXIS as my scene reference vector for now, but the good way to do would be to take the up vector of your object.

      posted in Developers' Forum
      Z
      zitoun
    • RE: Transformations

      @adamb said:

      And you will end up with many problems if you build your code around inverting the CTM and multiplying by a new transform.

      Not really: it's more like reseting the transformation and set the one you like. No inverse is needed, and this solution is actually the only solution I can see so far.

      But you're right, ignoring each object's current orientation is a real problem.

      posted in Developers' Forum
      Z
      zitoun
    • RE: Transformations

      @thomthom said:

      @zitoun said:

      @object.transform! @object.transformation.inverse

      This just resets the transformation - same as @object.transformation = Geom::Transformation.new

      @zitoun said:

      @object.transform! @transformationAt[toPage] * @object.transformation.inverse

      Isn't this just the same as: @object.transformation = @transformationAt[toPage] ?

      Yes, the inverse is not useful in my case.
      I use @object.transformation= @transformationAt[toPage], as you suggest, and it works (well I still have some awkward pbs but I expect to solve them soon).

      The code was just for my tests, I wanted to underline here that if you wish to do

      entity.transform! entity.transformation.inverse
      entity.transform! transfA
      entity.transform! transfB
      

      you could as well do

      entity.transform! transfB * transfA * entity.transformation.inverse
      

      or even better, as you say Thomthom

      entity.transformation = transf[b]B[/b] * transf[b]A[/b]
      
      posted in Developers' Forum
      Z
      zitoun
    • RE: Transformations

      Ahem.

      Just remember:

      @object.transform! @object.transformation.inverse
      @object.transform! @transformationAt[toPage]
      
      @object.transform! @transformationAt[toPage] * @object.transformation.inverse
      

      Note the order of the transformations... I had forgotten this well known pb !

      posted in Developers' Forum
      Z
      zitoun
    • RE: Transformations

      @thomthom said:

      If you always calculate from one fixed state then there is no need to undo the current transformation, you just set a new transformation overriding the old one.

      Yes indeed, but for some reason I thought that the method entity.transformation= was working differently (but I may have been really tired at the time I tested it).
      It completely make sense that it works the way you describe it.

      posted in Developers' Forum
      Z
      zitoun
    • RE: [Info] Allowable Classes for "set_attribute"

      VERY useful thread, thanks !
      Please make it kind of sticky: I've been chasing an uncatchable bug for hours, ignoring this information... Others might like to know this in the future!

      posted in Developers' Forum
      Z
      zitoun
    • RE: Transformations

      @thomthom said:

      This seems like it can be reduced to
      e.transformation = initialTransformation
      and that could possibly be reduced to:
      e.transformation = initialTransformation * transformationAtSuchFrame

      Really?
      I thought I had tested this solution and my results were not conclusive.
      But maybe I was too tired: I'm gonna try again !

      posted in Developers' Forum
      Z
      zitoun
    • RE: Transformations

      OK, I surrender, I chose Cleverbeans method in the end, which revealed to be quite fine to do:
      I re-initialized my plane transformation, then I scale it with a factor of 1/2 several time, until I had the right size (1/32 in the end). I then chose a reference rotation to position the plane as I wanted to in the first place. I then have an "initialTransformation" that I will have to apply each time BEFORE the other regular transformation.

      So for each frame I'll have
      e.transform!( e.transformation.inverse ) e.transform!( initialTransformation ) e.transform!( transformationAtSuchFrame ) #with transformationAtSuchFrame combining a rotation and a translation

      Now I am not depending anymore of a random initial state.
      Of course I will rather combine all the intermediate matrices and then apply once the resulting transformation, it should be quicker.

      EDIT: I may have a quicker solution, that I still have to validate: Geom::Transformation.origin method gives the translation to put the object at the origin (and then be able to perform a simple rotation).
      I might use this rather than combine several 4x4 matrix, it has to be a lot quicker !

      posted in Developers' Forum
      Z
      zitoun
    • RE: Transformations

      @thomthom said:

      In the same way my example took the local 3d position and transformed it with the combined transformation for all the containing groups/components you must apply the combined transformation to your vector of orientation/direction.

      Sure thomthom, I get that. My pb is deeper... OK, I have to give the details! Here is what I understood so far:

      An object has a 4x4 transformation matrix M attached that combines three parameters defining the geometrical state of the object:

      • the position T in space
      • the orientation R
      • the scale S

      Let's say I want to rotate my object (entity is the correct term I think) without changing the position: I will have to

      • apply to M the inverse of the translation T (so far I use [0,0,0]-T)
        Sketchup.active_model.active_entities.transform_entities(ORIGIN-fromPos,e) #puts the objet at the origin
      • then apply the relative orientation dR I need
        Sketchup.active_model.active_entities.transform_entities(Geom::Transformation.rotation(ORIGIN,UP,angle),e)
      • and finally apply back the translation T.

      You may say I should simply use the M.inverse but I think the scale factor would be a probl****em... Or not? (testing around) 🤓 ... All right. Seems we can simply do :

      • apply M.inverse,
        Sketchup.active_model.active_entities.transform_entities(e.transformation.inverse,e)
      • apply dR
      • apply M back
        Should be OK.

      And here comes my tiny problem: current orientation R of the object is somehow melted with the other parameters T and S in global my transformation matrix M... How the hell do I get a proper orientation R?
      Cause I already know the final absolute orientation R' I want my object (or entity, or, in my case, a good old german biplane) to reach: all I need is this initial orientation R to compute the difference dR.

      I thought to just get rid of the transformation, discard it and return to the identity and thus apply directly the wanted orientation R', then the position T. But it would be too easy: to fit in a small room, my plane had to be scaled, and I then need to know this scale factor S (that I otherwise simply ignore).

      This special line is to thank the reader for the effort he put to read my reply.
      And this one is for the people that would give me some clues: I owe you!

      posted in Developers' Forum
      Z
      zitoun
    • RE: Transformations

      @thomthom said:

      The transformation class has an axes method that I think could be used to get your bearings.

      As I see it, Transformation::axes method only enables to SET the axes, unfortunately not to GET them...
      😞

      EDIT: but maybe I should just SET the initial transformation, just like that... OK, let's try this.
      But I still think it should be a standard feature to get the absolute or relative rotation matrix/quaternion for any component of the scene...

      RE-EDIT: I hadn't seen Transformation::Xaxis, Yaxis and Zaxis method!
      I have no clue what these are yet, but I guess I somehow can retrieve my rotation matrix from such component...

      posted in Developers' Forum
      Z
      zitoun