0
\$\begingroup\$

Let t1/2, r1/2 and s1/2 be two sets of transformations. Translations are vec3, rotations are quaternions and scales are vec3. Lets assume that all common operations are defined (overloaded operators in c++).

How do I combine (in what order) the two sets of transformations into a third set t3, r3 and s3, such that mat4(t1, r1, s1) * mat4(t2, r2, s2) == mat4(t3, r3, s3), without actually converting to matrices?

Mat4 is composed as M = T * R * S. (OpenGL conventions, if it makes any difference)

Thanks


My original code:

transform transform::operator * (const transform &other) const
{
    transform r;
    r.orientation = orientation * other.orientation;
    r.scale = scale * other.scale;
    r.position = position + (other.position * orientation) * scale;
    return r;
}

this used to work when scale was just one number (uniform scale). But it does not work with non-uniform scale. I guess that one of the scales have to be rotated, but I am failing to find the correct way.


This is how I test it:

for (uint32 round = 0; round < 10; round++)
{
    vec3 pa = randomDirection3() * randomRange(-5, 20);
    vec3 pb = randomDirection3() * randomRange(-5, 20);
    quat oa = randomDirectionQuat();
    quat ob = randomDirectionQuat();
    vec3 sa = randomRange3(real(0.1), 10);
    vec3 sb = randomRange3(real(0.1), 10);
    transform ta(pa, oa, sa), tb(pb, ob, sb);
    test(mat4(ta * tb), mat4(ta) * mat4(tb));
}
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ This is not possible in the general case when you have both non-90-degree rotations on the "first" transformation and non-uniform scale on the second transformation. This can result in a squash or stretch being applied diagonal to the coordinate axes, which a vec3 of axis-aligned scale values is insufficient to describe. See discussion in this Q&A for more details. Would you be open to adding a second quaternion to your transformation representation to store the basis for scaling? \$\endgroup\$ – DMGregory Jan 20 at 14:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ Oh, I had not thought about that. Thank you very much. I will stay with just uniform scales. \$\endgroup\$ – Tomas Jan 20 at 14:37

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.