----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://codereview.secondlife.com/r/504/#review1060 -----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it! Looks good to me. The only issue I can see is commenting to why it's limited to 1 degree off the pure limit, so as to prevent this kind of confusion again. My guess is to prevent gimbal lock - which could then be rectified a different way later in the future, for instance by eliminating the limits and using non-Euler angles to control the rotation allowing the user to rotate continuously in vertical direction like is done in the horizontal. - Cron On Oct. 23, 2011, 6:44 a.m., Oz Linden wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://codereview.secondlife.com/r/504/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 23, 2011, 6:44 a.m.) > > > Review request for Viewer. > > > Summary > ------- > > See linked jira issue. It's not yet clear why the existing limits were > chosen, or why the limits were narrowed when sitting. > > > This addresses bug storm-1663. > http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/storm-1663 > > > Diffs > ----- > > indra/newview/llagent.cpp 02cd1e33128c > > Diff: http://codereview.secondlife.com/r/504/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > The changes here are essentially the same as the method used in Phoenix, so I > don't expect anything catastrophic. > > test viewer at > http://automated-builds-secondlife-com.s3.amazonaws.com/hg/repo/oz_project-2/rev/243714/index.html > > > Thanks, > > Oz > >
_______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
