fvtk documentation is incomprehensible

[stefanv]

Example:

    cam_pos : None or sequence (3,), optional
        camera position
    cam_focal : None or sequence (3,), optional
        camera focal point
    cam_view : None or sequence (3,), optional
        camera view up

[arokem]

Yeah - I had struggled with that camera thing too. I am not sure it works
as advertised...

On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Stefan van der Walt <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

Example:

cam_pos : None or sequence (3,), optional
    camera position
cam_focal : None or sequence (3,), optional
    camera focal point
cam_view : None or sequence (3,), optional
    camera view up

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/282
.

[Garyfallidis]

Okay, I can make that docstring better. But one way to know what you are doing with the camera is to throw a fvtk.axes() actor so that you know where is your origin and your coordinate system.Then it is relatively easy to setup your camera correctly. But, yeah the fvtk module in general needs some work. We should get something better rolling for release 0.8. @stefanv feel free to correct the docstring in a new PR as you suggest in this issue. Thx!

[stefanv]

I don't know what "view up" means. It may be more intuitive to specify elevation and azimuth?

[Garyfallidis]

Nope, it is very specific. It means the view up vector of the camera. Check this out. http://i.stack.imgur.com/vtkKX.png

[stefanv]

That would have helped a lot :)

[arokem]

This will probably be addressed in #286