info/BezierInfo-2
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/Pomax/BezierInfo-2.git synced 2025-07-31 22:10:48 +02:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

Update content.en-GB.md

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Mike Kamermans
2017-04-25 11:07:07 -07:00
committed by GitHub
parent 9f8a97cc78
commit e88baf5600
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
components/sections/matrixsplit/content.en-GB.md
View File

@@ -288,7 +288,7 @@ Excellent! Now we can form our new quadratic curve:
\end{bmatrix} \end{bmatrix}
\] \]
***Brilliant***: if we want a subcurve from `t = 0` to `t = z`, we can keep the first coordinate the same (which makes sense), our control point becomes a z-ratio mixture of the original control point and the start point, and the new end point is a mixture that looks oddly similar to a bernstein polynomial of degree two, except it uses (z-1) rather than (1-z)... These new coordinates are actually really easy to compute directly! ***Brilliant***: if we want a subcurve from `t = 0` to `t = z`, we can keep the first coordinate the same (which makes sense), our control point becomes a z-ratio mixture of the original control point and the start point, and the new end point is a mixture that looks oddly similar to a [Bernstein polynomial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_polynomial) of degree two, except it uses (z-1) rather than (1-z)... These new coordinates are actually really easy to compute directly!
Of course, that's only one of the two curves. Getting the section from `t = z` to `t = 1` requires doing this again. We first observe what we just did is actually evaluate the general interval [0,`z`], which we wrote down simplified becuase of that zero, but we actually evaluated this: Of course, that's only one of the two curves. Getting the section from `t = z` to `t = 1` requires doing this again. We first observe what we just did is actually evaluate the general interval [0,`z`], which we wrote down simplified becuase of that zero, but we actually evaluated this: