[osg-users] Quaternion Multiply
Matt.Sutton at padtinc.com
Sun Sep 14 16:40:19 PDT 2008
Thanks. Sorry for the noise on the list. I remember the convention
now that you mention it. However, I was implementing a rigid body
simulation using the OSG quaternion, and doing the multiplications in
the order described in the paper I was using as a reference.
Mysteriously, I was adding energy to the system, and finally tracked it
down to this. ;) I think I've learned my lesson...
Again, sorry for the noise.
From: osg-users-bounces at lists.openscenegraph.org
[mailto:osg-users-bounces at lists.openscenegraph.org] On Behalf Of J.P.
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 5:06 AM
To: OpenSceneGraph Users
Subject: Re: [osg-users] Quaternion Multiply
the matrix pre vs postmultiply (row and column major) issue comes up
every now and again on the list, so also see the mailing list archives:
Basically, OSG follows a (consistent) matrix multiplication order
convention that seems to differ from what most people expect first time
The quaternion multiplication order was made so that the order is
consistent with the matrix mult order used by OSG.
The best way to sort this out for yourself is to write a rotation
problem out on paper and then implement the same thing as a matrix and
quaternion operation in OSG.
See the code in osgunittests for the quaternion tests. There is also
code in OSG to print out the values of matrices and quaternions that can
Matt Sutton wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> I know I must be missing something, but can someone help me out
> this. It is true that multiplying two quaternions, a and b, can be
> as a linear transform of one on the other, right? So, for quaternions
> a, b and c you can have something like:
> c = a*b
> Option 1: Using a linear transform on b constructed from a
> c = A*b
> Option 2: Using a linear transform on a constructed from b
> c = B*a
> Note that matrices A and B have a slightly different construction
> the product of two quaternions is not commutative.
> But, it looks to me like the OSG implementation is effectively using
> option 1, but constructing the "A" matrix from the b quaternion? So,
> looks like a*b is actually b*a. Is that intended? If I'm totally
> seeing this wrong, please forgive me. I've attached a test file.
> Matt Sutton
> osg-users mailing list
> osg-users at lists.openscenegraph.org
This message is subject to the CSIR's copyright terms and conditions,
e-mail legal notice, and implemented Open Document Format (ODF)
The full disclaimer details can be found at
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks Transtec Computers for
osg-users mailing list
osg-users at lists.openscenegraph.org
More information about the osg-users