Fix CMatrix<T>::getScale returning negative scale #15687
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
CMatrix<T>::getScalecould previously, due to an "optimization" of dubious value, return negative values straight from the diagonal. This fixes that and simplifies the implementation a bit, removing the "optimization" entirely. (We could alsostd::absit, but I don't see much of a point in that.)After this fix, getting matrix rotations is a bit simpler, and a workaround which was only needed because we blindly shoveled a possibly negative scale into bone scene nodes (and thus had a rotation which didn't match that) can go.
There will be follow-up PRs.
To do
This PR is Ready for Review.
How to test
Play a bit with 3rd person with mods such as headanim that trigger the
EJUOR_CONTROLcode path, check that the bug the workaround fixed isn't back.(As for how I conjecture the workaround ever worked to begin with: I believe the recalculation might create an error large enough that the flawed optimization doesn't trigger anymore.)