Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

quat_look_at #42

Open
ghost opened this issue Feb 12, 2020 · 4 comments
Open

quat_look_at #42

ghost opened this issue Feb 12, 2020 · 4 comments

Comments

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Feb 12, 2020

I tried to find this function or an equivalent, but it seems to be missing: quat_look_at

I see matrix equivalents, but it would be really useful to be able to do this one with quaternions. From the internet it looks like this is commonly available in other quaternion libraries (e.g. Ogre3D's quaternions offer this) so it doesn't seem like a super arcane function either. Would be really cool if it could be added some day!

@RandyGaul
Copy link

RandyGaul commented Feb 12, 2020

Is it quat_from_vec?

@RandyGaul
Copy link

RandyGaul commented Feb 12, 2020

You can always use handmade math https://github.com/HandmadeMath/Handmade-Math if you want a C alternative. I also have my own C++ math header I personally use over at cute headers https://github.com/RandyGaul/cute_headers

Unless I’m mistaken I do think mathc is losing support for the time being. It seems to be in a decent state, but if you have questions or want updates it’s best to move to an alternative imo.

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Feb 12, 2020

Is it quat_from_vec?

Interesting question! I assumed this first as well and played around with quat_from_vec3 for hours but it gave me strange results, and sadly due both the weird function name and unnamed parameters it's not really clear to me what parameter would be the upvector if that is even the look at function at all. So maybe it is? But I couldn't really get it to work (might also be my buggy surrounding code though) and seems to me more like it isn't. But again, I don't know

You can always use handmade math

Ok, I will look at it! As for cute_headers, a C++ library is of no use to me since I am writing in C. I wouldn't mind staying with mathc though, as you already pointed out its state seems decent. But some of the parameter naming and (lack of) function descriptions are indeed a bit of a struggle for me.

@hydexon
Copy link

hydexon commented Sep 7, 2021

I'm still using this library because i'm using C, and because this library is the only compatible with OpenWatcom 2.0.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants