Content deleted Content added
Lucaswilkins (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 950:
:Applying and composing rotations aren't the only operations to consider either. Quaternions are easier to interpolate (again, useful for tangent space calculations on a GPU for example, but also for animation, modeling, etc...).
:"more numerically stable" -- this is un-doubtfuly true. When repeatedly composing rotations (eg in rigid body simulations) rotation matrices will inevitably become non-orthogonal. There are different ways to re-orthogonalize them, trading off precision and performance. In contrast to those, quaternions don't suffer from that issue at all. [[User:Ybungalobill|bungalo]] ([[User talk:Ybungalobill|talk]]) 20:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
== Labelling the formulas in the Alternative Convention section ==
The paragraph argued that usage of the Shuster convention is discouraged, as did the cited article "Why and How to Avoid the Flipped Quaternion Multiplication" by Sommer et. al. But the formulas in the paragraph are not clearly distinguished (except by red minus signs). These formulae are beginning to show up on Google Images out of context, creating a lot of confusion to students. I tried to add labelling "\qquad \text{alternative Convention, usage discouraged} to the right of the formulas but the edit got reverted by a anti-vandalism bot. If anyone (especially registered users) agree, please help with the edit.[[Special:Contributions/184.147.40.19|184.147.40.19]] ([[User talk:184.147.40.19|talk]]) 04:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
| |||