4 ms·
You're definitely right to bring up Gimbal lock [1] One of the benefits of knowing about it is to know when it doesn't matter to you. In that case, you can jus
by quietbritishjim 5y ago
You're definitely right to bring up Gimbal lock [1]
One of the benefits of knowing about it is to know when it doesn't matter to you. In that case, you can just use Euler angles, as you say. If you just need to express a rotation in terms of three angles, or convert back from three angles (e.g. yaw/pitch/roll [2]) to a rotation matrix, then you don't need to know about quartertonians at all.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbal_lock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbal_lock
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_principal_axes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_principal_axes
- gspr 5y agoEven in this case you need to take care of the action of rotations on points near the poles, don't you? (I don't remember, it's been a long time since I did such calculations). But yes, otherwise I agree with you.
- gilbetron 5y agoIf you are going to apply 3 angles directly, then you run into problems (specifically, if you pitch +/- 90 degrees, then roll and yaw become the same thing, aka gimbal lock). If you take those 3 angles and convert them to a matrix, and use that matrix to apply the angles, you're all good. You can then even take the new matrix and pull 3 angles out of that.
- toxik 5y ago… and those three angles will be discontinuous at the poles.