I have recently been working on a game with using OpenGL and C++ through GLFW.

In the game I have an airship with a turret mounted on it. The airship moves around in world space coordinates and the turret 'follows' it.

The turret has it's own coordinate space for its look/aim direction. Basically, when the turret aims in direction (0,0,1), it aims parallel to the airships direction of movement.

To give the turret a world space target, I have a matrix that takes world space coordinates and transforms these to turret space coordinates.

As the turret fires, I want it to spawn projectiles in world space, so is there an elegant way of using my transformation matrix to convert turret space coordinates back to world space?

A more general way of asking the question might be: if I have a matrix M that takes coordinates from space A to space B. Is there an easy way to use M to get the coordinates from B to A?


So long as the matrix M is invertible (which it generally will be, unless you're doing something very unusual), then computing the matrix inverse of M will give you a matrix that does what you want.

That is, if M performs some transformation, inverse(M) performs the "opposite" transformation.

Most matrix/vector libraries provide a means for computing the inverse.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Bonus question (as you seem like a person who would know the answer): Would any non-invertible transformation matrices produce visually interesting results? \$\endgroup\$ Dec 11 '14 at 0:12
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ @user1306322 Maybe. Projecting into a lower dimension (e.g. zero all X values) would be a non-invertible transformation, since you're throwing away values. It's interesting in the sense that it's useful, but not that you'll get funky results. "Invertibility" and "visually interesting" are orthogonal. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 11 '14 at 1:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ @congusbongus nope! Projection from 3D to 2D is a standard hack to get drop shadows on planar receivers. \$\endgroup\$
    – imallett
    Dec 11 '14 at 4:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ @user1306322 You might be interested in the Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse \$\endgroup\$ Dec 11 '14 at 9:00

If your transformation matrix is a rotation matrix then you can simplify the problem by taking advantage of the fact that the inverse of a rotation matrix is the transpose of that matrix.

If your transformation matrix represents a rotation followed by a translation, then treat the components separately. The inverse is equivalent to subtracting the translation and then applying the transpose of the rotation matrix.


In your matrix lib there is probably a function called inverse. That is probably what you are looking for.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.