197 + result.rotation.x = start.rotation.x + (end.rotation.x - start.rotation.x) * progress; 198 + result.rotation.y = start.rotation.y + (end.rotation.y - start.rotation.y) * progress; 199 + result.rotation.z = start.rotation.z + (end.rotation.z - start.rotation.z) * progress;
This could be shorten by: basically what you do is +val1 + val2 - val1 => well val1 would then be 0 (maybe the compiler would optimize that anyway)
result.rotation.x = end.rotation.x * progress; result.rotation.y = end.rotation.y * progress; result.rotation.z = end.rotation.z * progress;
doesn't it?
« Back to merge proposal
197 + result.rotation.x = start.rotation.x + (end.rotation.x - start.rotation.x) * progress;
198 + result.rotation.y = start.rotation.y + (end.rotation.y - start.rotation.y) * progress;
199 + result.rotation.z = start.rotation.z + (end.rotation.z - start.rotation.z) * progress;
This could be shorten by:
basically what you do is +val1 + val2 - val1 => well val1 would then be 0
(maybe the compiler would optimize that anyway)
result.rotation.x = end.rotation.x * progress;
result.rotation.y = end.rotation.y * progress;
result.rotation.z = end.rotation.z * progress;
doesn't it?