Does anyone know how inefficient gluLookAt is? I have a working camera class that handles strafing, full 360x360 range of motion without any gimbal lock or anything, but I can''t get it free of the gluLookAt function very easily, so I''m wondering if it would be worthwhile to put a ton of effort into figuring out my own matrix transformations, or should I simply accept this limitation of my engine?

Ton of effort;Limitation...
Ton of effort;Limitation...
What is the limitation? You don''t exactly describe it very well do you? Unless someone can figure out what your limitation is you might be better off with the "limitation".


PS: I''m a newbie idiot but i''m pretty sure you could describe that better for the geniuses out there couldn''t you?

"Those who want it, but can''''t get it, will complain about it.

ton o'' effort: making my own matrix transformations
limitation: gluLookAt is slow enough that commercial games don''t use it, so I probably shouldn''t either.

OK?

Worry about it being too slow when your frame rates are really dropping from it. Or if you prefer you could spend the time doing your own matrix transformations. You aren''t making a commercial game are you? Surely you realize they might not use it but they usually take years to finish their projects and they work on projects in a rather large group.

"Those who want it, but can''''t get it, will complain about it.

guys,
I think u should take the effort to learn the basic transformations:
glTranslate , glRotate.
they are so simple. the first moves to a point in your space,
the second rotates at a given angle around a given vector...

move....then rotate....
I think its simpler than glLookAt.

read some on the subject (red book, super bible). its wourth the effort.

enjoy...

gluLookAt is nice and easy for keeping a specific point/object at the centre of the view.

Thanks for that link. Oddly enough, my camera class looks almost exactly like yours. I have one vector pointing forwards, one up, and one off to the left, just like you do (ok, I guess that''s the obvious way, but I found that a bit interesting). So, I guess I''ll have a look at your transformation matrix and see what I can do with it. thanks.