Limits Plugin

[cheathamlane]

Hi there:

May I humbly request that:


<limits>
pan_min = 0
pan_max = 360
tilt_min = -90
tilt_max = 90
</limits>


Operate the same way as:

<limits>
pan_min =
pan_max =
tilt_min =
tilt_max =
</limits>



Right now, setting pan_min and max to 0/360 results in a limited pan (ie, the pan stops in either direction), when my intention was for it to wrap around. Likewise, setting a tilt limit of -90/90 results in not being able to tilt all the way up or down.

Or, could there be a "wraparound" option for the Limits plugin?

--

Also, I found the Limits plugin update the hard way, here on the forum. It would be really nice to have email notification of these updates, or have a sticky in the forum...

Cheers,

[PauloGGPX]

HI Patrick,

is there a reason for not using empty values for the "wraparound" effect?

from my experiments the plugin limits the angle visible at any given time, so when you do pan_min=0 the real maximum pan value is about 45є (it's pan_min+fov).

I noticed also that in the tilt you can give a value bigger than 180 in the tilt_max and it will allow us to look strait up. To hide my nadir cap I use:


<limits>
pan_min =
pan_max =
tilt_min = -65
tilt_max = 130
</limits>

I tried a similar logic in the pan values but it didn't work ;)

It looks like the plugin converts the full rotation to a interval between -180є to 180є, if you put pan min and max as -180 and 180 it won't move (the same with -185 and 185).

I think that making both operate in the same way is a mistake, the current limits plugin takes into account the current fov.

but the wraparound effect is a nice idea, maybe a boolean pan_wrap and tilt_wrap?


<limits>
pan_min = 0
pan_max = 360
pan_wrap = true
tilt_min = -65
tilt_max = 130
tilt_wrap = false
</limits>

or better yet another boolean to either take fov in consideration or not


<limits>
pan_min = 0
pan_max = 360
pan_wrap = true
pan_fov = true
tilt_min = -65
tilt_max = 90
tilt_wrap = false
tilt_fov = false
</limits>

[cheathamlane]

Yeah, I think you're right Paulo -- I understand the reasoning behind not wrapping around 0/360 if you explicitly tell the plugin 0 or 360... My vote is in for a "wraparound" variable!