 | | Re: Another matrix inverse question (and answer?) —Timothy Gould
| | | | (...) If it's only rotations then it should make sense. Another way of passing the information is as follows (M,x) where M is the matrix and x is the translation vector the inverse of this is (Mi,-Mi x) which you can see by showing that an operation (...) (18 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.cad)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Another matrix inverse question (and answer?) —Brian Durney
| | | | | (...) Yes, that makes sense. Looking back at Travis's code, I see that's basically what's happening there, except that some references to the original matrix should be references to the inverse matrix. He probably used it only to invert rotations (...) (18 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.cad)
| | | | | | |
