So, I was gonna faff about with transformations to get a better grasp of how they worked, when I noticed something interesting:
So did I find a bug, or is this intended?
If it's intended, why is it like this?
Hmm, lets zoom in:
Ok, what? So calling points as (1, 1) will place the point one pixel above the rectangle, which has the starting point (1, 1)?graphics.points coordinates are borked(?)
Forum rules
Before you make a thread asking for help, read this.
Before you make a thread asking for help, read this.
- bartbes
- Sex machine
- Posts: 4946
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:35 am
- Location: The Netherlands
- Contact:
Re: graphics.points coordinates are borked(?)
So first of all, the top-left is actually (0, 0), not (1, 1). The second thing you may be seeing, and this depends on drivers, is that points are usually drawn with the coordinate as its centre point. This means that (at least on most systems) drawing at (0.5,0.5) is the way to fill the pixel at (0, 0), and drawing at (0,0) actually fills all neighbouring pixels. Unfortunately points are just really awkwardly defined in OpenGL.
Re: graphics.points coordinates are borked(?)
Ah, that makes sense (and kind of not as well...)
This should probably be stated somewhere on the wiki pages for points and point =/
Edit: nevermind, it is there... However it might be higlighted a bit more?
This should probably be stated somewhere on the wiki pages for points and point =/
Edit: nevermind, it is there... However it might be higlighted a bit more?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 4 guests