Repository navigation
Reverts the changes introduced by commit ad766cb in February 2022. - #5542
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
@kimkulling are these checks supposed to work or not? 🙃 |
Member
|
Yes they're supposed to work. You forgot a |
Contributor
Author
OMG, shame! 🙈 |
Explanation why the old code was just fine is given in Q&A assimp#5512.
johannesugb
force-pushed
the
good-old-bitangent-code
branch
from
April 25, 2024 19:16
7fb2907 to
8143a16
Compare
Member
|
After reading all the explanations I do agree that we should use the original code. |
This file contains hidden or 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
ASSIMP's way of calculating bitangents before commit ad766cb was just fine, but unfortunately it was changed by that commit in February 2022, breaking compatibility to previous code.
It introduces two problems:
More detailed explanation why the old code was just fine is given in Q&A #5512
Suggestion: Just revert to the old code, which this pull request suggests.