Develop Reference

Unity increasing the scale of a GameObject not working?

GameObject:
I have a gameObject "Sphere" with the following properties:
Starting scale of 1.5 (x, y, z).
A script that makes sure that the scale is between 0 and 150.
What do I have:
Now, I have implemented a function that the user can scale the GameObject by using the HTC Vive Controllers (we are using Virtual Reality).
This function checks the distance between the controllers (often between -1 and 1 to decide if we want to upscale or downscale the object).
So when I have this value between -1 and 1, I am scaling the GameObject by the value multiple the sensitivity (this is editable in the Unity Editor).
What do I want:
This works pretty fine, although, I want to increase the sensitivity over time on a not hard-coded way. So when the GameObject is very small, the scaling will be very slow. When the GameObject is pretty big, the scaling will go quick.
What have I tried:
I have this value (between -1 and 1), then I will multiply this value with the sensitivity.
Then I will multiply by the current scale / the maximum scale.
However, this is causing an issue that the zooming in is going faster then zooming out.
The code that I am using looks like below:
float currentControllerDistance = Vector3.Distance(LeftHand.transform.position, RightHand.transform.position);
float currentZoomAmount = currentControllerDistance - ControllersStartPostionDifference; // Value is between -1 and 1.
currentZoomAmount = currentZoomAmount * ScalingSensitivity; // Multiplying by the value in the Unity Editor.
float currentPercentage = ObjectToScale.transform.localScale.x / ObjectMaximumScale.x; // Current scale percentage in comparison to the maximum scale.
currentZoomAmount = currentZoomAmount * currentPercentage; // Changing the ObjectToScale by adding the currentZoomAmount.
ObjectToScale.transform.localScale = new Vector3(ObjectCurrentScale.x + currentZoomAmount, ObjectCurrentScale.y + currentZoomAmount, ObjectCurrentScale.z + currentZoomAmount);
Does someone have any idea how to do this kind of scaling?
Thanks in forward.

If I understood the question correctly, you're looking for way to specify the rate of change of your scaling so that it changes faster when closer to the maximum scale, which sounds like a job for an easing function.
If your project already uses a tweening library like DOTween, this should be easily done with that library's capabilities. If not, you can try using the equation for the cubic bézier, which is one of the simpler curves:
Cubic Bézier
This is simply y = x^3, so you can try ObjectMaximumScale.x * currentPercentage * currentPercentage * currentPercentage to get a value that goes from 0 to ObjectMaximumScale.x when fed a value between 0 and 1 respectively.

Unity C# Firing a projectile at a target rotating around moving axis

I'm developing a 3D spacegame where the camera is in a constant 2D (top down) state. I am able to fire a projectile of speed (s) at a target moving at a given velocity and hit it every time. Great! Okay so what if that target has an angular velocity around a parent? I noticed that if the target has a parent object that is rotating, my projection isn't correct since it doesn't account for the angular velocity.
My initial code was built around the assumption that:
Position_target + Velocity_target * t = Position_shooter + Velocity_shooter * t + Bulletspeed * t
I assume that the shooter is stationary (or potentially moving) and needs to fire a bullet with a constant magnitude.
I simplify the above to this
Delta_Position = Position_target - Position_shooter
Delta_Velocity = Velocity_target - Velocity_shooter
Delta_Position + Delta_Velocity * t = BulletSpeed * t
Squaring both sides I come to a quadratic equation where I can solve for t given determinant outcomes or zeros. This works perfect. I return a t value and then project the target's position and current velocity out to that t, and then I have turret scripts that rotate at a given angular velocity towards that point. If the turret says its looking at that point within 1% on all axis, it fires the bullet at speed(s) and its a 100% hit if the target doesn't alter its course or velocity.
I started adding components on my ships / asteroids that were a child of the parent object, like a turret attached to a ship where the turret itself is a target. If the ship is rotating around an axis (for example Y axis) and the turret is not at x=0 and z=0 my projection no longer works. I thought that using r * sin ( theta + omega * t) as the angular velocity component for the X position and r * cos ( theta + omega * t) for the Z position could work. Theta is the current rotation (with respect to world coordinates) and the omega is the eulerAngle rotation around the y axis.
I've quickly realized this only works with rotating around the y axis, and I can't put the sin into a quadratic equation because I can't extract the t from it so I can't really project this appropriately. I tried using hyperbolics but it was the same situation. I can create an arbitrary t, let's say t=2, and calculate where the object will be in 2 seconds. But I am struggling to find a way to implement the bullet speed projection with this.
Position_targetparent + Velocity_targetparent * t + [ANGULAR VELOCITY COMPONENT] = Position_shooter + Velocity_shooter * t + Bulletspeed * t
Delta_Position_X + Delta_Velocity_X * t + S * t = r * sin (theta + Omegay * t)
Delta_Position_Z + Delta_Velocity_Z * t + S * t = r * cos (theta + Omegay * t)
From here I have been spinning my wheels endlessly trying to figure out a workable solution for this. I am using the eulerAngle.y for the omega which works well. Ultimately I just need that instantaneous point in space that I should fire at which is a product of the speed of the bullet and the distance of the projection, and then my turrets aiming scripts will take care of the rest.
I have been looking at a spherical coordinate system based around the parents position (the center of the rotation)
Vector3 deltaPosition = target.transform.position - target.transform.root.position;
r = deltaPosition .magnitude;
float theta = Mathf.Acos(deltaPosition.z / r);
float phi = Mathf.Atan2(deltaPosition.y,deltaPosition.x);
float xPos = r * Mathf.Sin(theta) * Mathf.Cos(phi)
float yPos = r * Mathf.Sin(theta) * Mathf.Sin(phi)
float zPos = r * Mathf.Cos(theta)
Vector3 currentRotation = transform.root.gameObject.transform.rotation.eulerAngles * Mathf.Deg2Rad;
Vector3 angularVelocity = transform.root.gameObject.GetComponent<Rigidbody>().angularVelocity;
I can calculate the position of the object given these angles ... but I am struggling to turn this into something I can use with the omega * t (angular velocity) approach.
I am wondering if there is a more elegant approach to this problem, or if someone can point me in the right direction of a formula to help me think this through? I am not the best with Quaternions and EulerAngles but I am learning them slowly. Maybe there's something clever I can do with those?

Although the math is likely still tough, I suspect you can simplify the math substantially by having the "target" calculate its future position in local space. And then having it call that location to its parent, have that calculate it in local space, and so on up the hierarchy until you reach world space. Once you have its future position in world space you can aim your turret at that target.
For example an orbiting ship should be able to calculate its future orbit easily. This is an equation for an ellipse. Which can then send that local position to its parent (planet) which is presumably also orbiting and calculate that position relative to itself. The planet will then send this local position to its own parent (Star) and so on. Until you get to world space.
You can further simplify this math by making the bullet's travel time constant (flexible speed), so you can simplify figuring out the future position at a specific time. Depending on the scale of your game, the actual difference in speed might not be that different.
Another idea: Instead of doing all the calculations from brute force, you could "simulate" the target object forward in time. Make sure all the code that affects is position can be run separate from your actual update loop. Simply advance the clock way ahead, and see its future position without actually moving it. Then go back to the present and fire the gun at its future position.

I suggest to solve this problem approximately.
If you can describe the position of your target by a function over time, f(t), then you can approximate it using an divide and conquer strategy like this:
Algorithm (pseudo code):
Let f(t:float):Vector3 be a function that calculates the position of the target at time t
Let g(p:Vector3):float be a function that calculates how long the bullet would need to reach p
float begin = 0 // Lower bound of bullet travel time to hit the target
float end = g(target.position) // Upper bound
// Find an upper bound so that the bullet can hit the target between begin and end time
while g(f(end)) > end:
begin = end
end = end * 2 // Exponential growth for fast convergence
// Add break condition in case the target can't be hit (faster than bullet)
end
// Narrow down the possible aim target, doubling the precision in every step
for i = 1...[precision]:
float center = begin + (end - begin) / 2
float travelTime = g(f(center))
if travelTime > center: // Bullet can't reach target
begin = center
else // Bullet overtook target
end = center
end
end
float finalTravelTime = begin + (end - begin) / 2
Vector3 aimPosition = f(finalTravelTime) // You should aim here...
You need to experiment with the value for [precision]. It should be as small as possible, but large enough for the bullet to always hit the target.
You can also use another break condition, like restricting the absolute error (distance of the bullet to the target at the finalTravelTime).
In case that the target can travel faster than the bullet, you need to add a break condition on the upper bounds loop, otherwise it can become an infinite loop.
Why this is useful:
Instead of calculating a complex equality function to determine the time of impact, you can approximate it with a rather simple position function and this method.
This algorithm is independent of the actual position function, thus works with various enemy movements, as long as the future position can be calculated.
Downsides:
This function calculates f(t) many times, this can be CPU intensive for a complex f(t).
Also it is only an approximation, where the precision of the result gets worse the further the travel time is.
Note:
I wrote this algorithm from the top of my head.
I don't guarantee the correctness of the pseudo code, but the algorithm should work.

Vector direction for gravity in a circular orbit

I am currently working on a project in C# where i play around with planetary gravitation, which i know is a hardcore topic to graps to it's fullest but i like challenges. I've been reading up on Newtons laws and Keplers Laws, but one thing i cannot figure out is how to get the correct gravitational direction.
In my example i only have 2 bodies. A Satellite and a Planet. This is to make is simplify it, so i can grasp it - but my plan is to have multiple objects that dynamically effect each other, and hopefully end up with a somewhat realistic multi-body system.
When you have an orbit, then the satellite has a gravitational force, and that is ofcourse in the direction of the planet, but that direction isn't a constant. To explain my problem better i'll try using an example:
let's say we have a satellite moving at a speed of 50 m/s and accelerates towards the planet at a speed of 10 m/s/s, in a radius of 100 m. (all theoretical numbers) If we then say that the framerate is at 1, then after one second the object will be 50 units forward and 10 units down.
As the satellite moves multiple units in a frame and about 50% of the radius, the gravitational direcion have shifted alot, during this frame, but the applied force have only been "downwards". this creates a big margin of error, especially if the object is moving a big percentage of the radius.
In our example we'd probably needed our graviational direction to be based upon the average between our current position and the position at the end of this frame.
How would one go about calculating this?
I have a basis understanding of trigonometry, but mainly with focus on triangles. Assume i am stupid, because compared to any of you, i probably am.
(I made a previous question but ended up deleting it as it created some hostility and was basicly not that well phrased, and was ALL to general - it wasn't really a specific question. i hope this is better. if not, then please inform me, i am here to learn :) )
Just for reference, this is the function i have right now for movement:
foreach (ExtTerBody OtherObject in UniverseController.CurrentUniverse.ExterTerBodies.Where(x => x != this))
{
double massOther = OtherObject.Mass;
double R = Vector2Math.Distance(Position, OtherObject.Position);
double V = (massOther) / Math.Pow(R,2) * UniverseController.DeltaTime;
Vector2 NonNormTwo = (OtherObject.Position - Position).Normalized() * V;
Vector2 NonNormDir = Velocity + NonNormTwo;
Velocity = NonNormDir;
Position += Velocity * Time.DeltaTime;
}
If i have phrased myself badly, please ask me to rephrase parts - English isn't my native language, and specific subjects can be hard to phrase, when you don't know the correct technical terms. :)
I have a hunch that this is covered in keplers second law, but if it is, then i'm not sure how to use it, as i don't understand his laws to the fullest.
Thank you for your time - it means alot!
(also if anyone see multi mistakes in my function, then please point them out!)

I am currently working on a project in C# where i play around with planetary gravitation
This is a fun way to learn simulation techniques, programming and physics at the same time.
One thing I cannot figure out is how to get the correct gravitational direction.
I assume that you are not trying to simulate relativistic gravitation. The Earth isn't in orbit around the Sun, the Earth is in orbit around where the sun was eight minutes ago. Correcting for the fact that gravitation is not instantaneous can be difficult. (UPDATE: According to commentary this is incorrect. What do I know; I stopped taking physics after second year Newtonian dynamics and have only the vaguest understanding of tensor calculus.)
You'll do best at this early stage to assume that the gravitational force is instantaneous and that planets are points with all their mass at the center. The gravitational force vector is a straight line from one point to another.
Let's say we have a satellite moving at a speed of 50 m/s ... If we then say that the framerate is one frame per second then after one second the object will be 50 units right and 10 units down.
Let's make that more clear. Force is equal to mass times acceleration. You work out the force between the bodies. You know their masses, so you now know the acceleration of each body. Each body has a position and a velocity. The acceleration changes the velocity. The velocity changes the position. So if the particle starts off having a velocity of 50 m/s to the left and 0 m/s down, and then you apply a force that accelerates it by 10 m/s/s down, then we can work out the change to the velocity, and then the change to the position. As you note, at the end of that second the position and the velocity will have both changed by a huge amount compared to their existing magnitudes.
As the satellite moves multiple units in a frame and about 50% of the radius, the gravitational direcion have shifted alot, during this frame, but the applied force have only been "downwards". this creates a big margin of error, especially if the object is moving a big percentage of the radius.
Correct. The problem is that the frame rate is enormously too low to correctly model the interaction you're describing. You need to be running the simulation so that you're looking at tenths, hundredths or thousanths of seconds if the objects are changing direction that rapidly. The size of the time step is usually called the "delta t" of the simulation, and yours is way too large.
For planetary bodies, what you're doing now is like trying to model the earth by simulating its position every few months and assuming it moves in a straight line in the meanwhile. You need to actually simulate its position every few minutes, not every few months.
In our example we'd probably needed our graviational direction to be based upon the average between our current position and the position at the end of this frame.
You could do that but it would be easier to simply decrease the "delta t" for the computation. Then the difference between the directions at the beginning and the end of the frame is much smaller.
Once you've got that sorted out then there are more techniques you can use. For example, you could detect when the position changes too much between frames and go back and redo the computations with a smaller time step. If the positions change hardly at all then increase the time step.
Once you've got that sorted, there are lots of more advanced techniques you can use in physics simulations, but I would start by getting basic time stepping really solid first. The more advanced techniques are essentially variations on your idea of "do a smarter interpolation of the change over the time step" -- you are on the right track here, but you should walk before you run.

I'll start with a technique that is almost as simple as the Euler-Cromer integration you've been using but is markedly more accurate. This is the leapfrog technique. The idea is very simple: position and velocity are kept at half time steps from one another.
The initial state has position and velocity at time t0. To get that half step offset, you'll need a special case for the very first step, where velocity is advanced half a time step using the acceleration at the start of the interval and then position is advanced by a full step. After this first time special case, the code works just like your Euler-Cromer integrator.
In pseudo code, the algorithm looks like
void calculate_accel (orbiting_body_collection, central_body) {
foreach (orbiting_body : orbiting_body_collection) {
delta_pos = central_body.pos - orbiting_body.pos;
orbiting_body.acc =
(central_body.mu / pow(delta_pos.magnitude(),3)) * delta_pos;
}
}
void leapfrog_step (orbiting_body_collection, central_body, delta_t) {
static bool initialized = false;
calculate_accel (orbiting_body_collection, central_body);
if (! initialized) {
initialized = true;
foreach orbiting_body {
orbiting_body.vel += orbiting_body.acc*delta_t/2.0;
orbiting_body.pos += orbiting_body.vel*delta_t;
}
}
else {
foreach orbiting_body {
orbiting_body.vel += orbiting_body.acc*delta_t;
orbiting_body.pos += orbiting_body.vel*delta_t;
}
}
}
Note that I've added acceleration as a field of each orbiting body. This was a temporary step to keep the algorithm similar to yours. Note also that I moved the calculation of acceleration to it's own separate function. That is not a temporary step. It is the first essential step to advancing to even more advanced integration techniques.
The next essential step is to undo that temporary addition of the acceleration. The accelerations properly belong to the integrator, not the body. On the other hand, the calculation of accelerations belongs to the problem space, not the integrator. You might want to add relativistic corrections, or solar radiation pressure, or planet to planet gravitational interactions. The integrator should be unaware of what goes into those accelerations are calculated. The function calculate_accels is a black box called by the integrator.
Different integrators have very different concepts of when accelerations need to be calculated. Some store a history of recent accelerations, some need an additional workspace to compute an average acceleration of some sort. Some do the same with velocities (keep a history, have some velocity workspace). Some more advanced integration techniques use a number of techniques internally, switching from one to another to provide the best balance between accuracy and CPU usage. If you want to simulate the solar system, you need an extremely accurate integrator. (And you need to move far, far away from floats. Even doubles aren't good enough for a high precision solar system integration. With floats, there's not much point going past RK4, and maybe not even leapfrog.)
Properly separating what belongs to whom (the integrator versus the problem space) makes it possible to refine the problem domain (add relativity, etc.) and makes it possible to easily switch integration techniques so you can evaluate one technique versus another.

So i found a solution, it might not be the smartest, but it works, and it's pretty came to mind after reading both Eric's answer and also reading the comment made by marcus, you could say that it's a combination of the two:
This is the new code:
foreach (ExtTerBody OtherObject in UniverseController.CurrentUniverse.ExterTerBodies.Where(x => x != this))
{
double massOther = OtherObject.Mass;
double R = Vector2Math.Distance(Position, OtherObject.Position);
double V = (massOther) / Math.Pow(R,2) * Time.DeltaTime;
float VRmod = (float)Math.Round(V/(R*0.001), 0, MidpointRounding.AwayFromZero);
if(V > R*0.01f)
{
for (int x = 0; x < VRmod; x++)
{
EulerMovement(OtherObject, Time.DeltaTime / VRmod);
}
}
else
EulerMovement(OtherObject, Time.DeltaTime);
}
public void EulerMovement(ExtTerBody OtherObject, float deltaTime)
{
double massOther = OtherObject.Mass;
double R = Vector2Math.Distance(Position, OtherObject.Position);
double V = (massOther) / Math.Pow(R, 2) * deltaTime;
Vector2 NonNormTwo = (OtherObject.Position - Position).Normalized() * V;
Vector2 NonNormDir = Velocity + NonNormTwo;
Velocity = NonNormDir;
//Debug.WriteLine("Velocity=" + Velocity);
Position += Velocity * deltaTime;
}
To explain it:
I came to the conclusion that if the problem was that the satellite had too much velocity in one frame, then why not seperate it into multiple frames? So this is what "it" does now.
When the velocity of the satellite is more than 1% of the current radius, it seperates the calculation into multiple bites, making it more precise.. This will ofcourse lower the framerate when working with high velocities, but it's okay with a project like this.
Different solutions are still very welcome. I might tweak the trigger-amounts, but the most important thing is that it works, then i can worry about making it more smooth!
Thank's everybody that took a look, and everyone who helped be find the conclusion myself! :) It's awesome that people can help like this!

XNA - 3D Rotation about local (changing) ship axes - What am I missing?

I'm developing a 3D spaceshooter in XNA as a school project (basically Asteroids in 3D with power-ups), and have been working to implement roll, pitch, and yaw with respect to the ship's local axes. (I should emphasize: the rotation is not with respect to the absolute/world x, y, and z axes.) Sadly, I've been struggling with this for the last few weeks. Google and my neolithic monkey brain have failed me; maybe you folks can help!
Here's my setup:
Via keyboard input, I have the following variables ready to go:
yawRadians, which stores the desired yaw away from the ship's initial
position
pitchRadians, which stores the desired pitch away from the
ship's initial position
rollRadians, which stores the desired roll
away from the ship's initial position
The ship also maintains its own Front, Back, Right, Left, Top and Bottom unit vectors, which are used both for the rotations and also for propulsion. (Different keys will propel the ship toward the Front, Back, etc. This part is working great.)
Ultimately, I generate the rotation matrix mShipRotation, representing all of the ship's rotations, which is passed to the ship's draw method.
The problem I have is with the rotations themselves. Different solutions I've tried have had differing results. Here's what I've gone with so far:
Method 1 – Yaw, Pitch, and Roll relative to the absolute/world x, y, and z axes
At first, I naively tried using the following in my ship's Update method:
qYawPitchRoll = Quaternion.CreateFromYawPitchRoll(yawRadians, pitchRadians, rollRadians);
vFront = Vector3.Transform(vOriginalFront, qYawPitchRoll);
vBack = -1 * vFront;
vRight = Vector3.Transform(vOriginalRight, qYawPitchRoll);
vLeft = -1 * vRight;
vTop = Vector3.Transform(vOriginalTop, qYawPitchRoll);
vBottom = -1 * vTop;
mShipRotation = Matrix.CreateFromQuaternion(qYawPitchRoll);
(vOriginalFront, vOriginalRight, and vOriginalTop just store the ship's initial orientation.)
The above actually works without any errors, except that the rotations are always with respect to the x, y, and z axes, and not with respect to the ship's Front/Back/Right/Left/Top/Bottom vectors. This results in the ship not always yawing and pitching as expected. (Specifically, yawing degenerates to rolling if you have pitched up so the ship is pointing to the top. This makes sense, as yawing in this solution is just rotating about the world up axis.)
I heard about the Quarternion.CreateFromAxisAngle method, which sounded perfect. I could just combine three Quaternion rotations, one around each of the ship's local axis. What could go wrong?
Method 2 – Quaternion.CreateFromAxisAngle
Here's the second code snippet I used in my ship's Update method:
qPitch = Quaternion.CreateFromAxisAngle(vRight, pitchRadians);
qYaw = Quaternion.CreateFromAxisAngle(vTop, yawRadians);
qRoll = Quaternion.CreateFromAxisAngle(vFront, rollRadians);
qPitchYawAndRoll = Quaternion.Concatenate(Quaternion.Concatenate(qPitch, qYaw), qRoll);
vFront = Vector3.Normalize(Vector3.Transform(vOriginalFront, qPitchYawAndRoll));
vBack = -1 * vFront;
vRight = Vector3.Normalize(Vector3.Transform(vOriginalRight, qPitchYawAndRoll));
vLeft = -1 * vRight;
vTop = Vector3.Normalize(Vector3.Transform(vOriginalTop, qPitchYawAndRoll));
vBottom = -1 * vTop;
mShipRotation = Matrix.CreateFromQuaternion(qPitchYawAndRoll);
The above works perfectly if I only do one rotation at a time (yaw, pitch, or roll), but if I combine more than one rotation simultaneously, the ship begins to wildly spin and point in many different directions, getting more and more warped until it disappears entirely.
I've tried variants of the above where I first apply the Pitch to all the vectors, then the Yaw, then the Roll, but no luck.
I also tried it using Matrices directly, despite concerns of Gimbal Lock:
Method 3: Matrices
mShipRotation = Matrix.Identity;
mShipRotation *= Matrix.CreateFromAxisAngle(vRight, pitchRadians);
mShipRotation *= Matrix.CreateFromAxisAngle(vFront, rollRadians);
mShipRotation *= Matrix.CreateFromAxisAngle(vTop, yawRadians);
vFront = Vector3.Normalize(Vector3.Transform(vOriginalFront, mShipRotation));
vBack = -1 * vFront;
vRight = Vector3.Normalize(Vector3.Transform(vOriginalRight, mShipRotation));
vLeft = -1 * vRight;
vTop = Vector3.Normalize(Vector3.Transform(vOriginalTop, mShipRotation));
vBottom = -1 * vTop;
No luck; I got the same behavior. One rotation at a time is okay, but rotating about multiple axes resulted in the same bizarre spinning behavior.
After some brilliant debugging (read as: blindly outputting variables to the console), I noticed that the Front/Right/Top vectors were slowly, over time, becoming less orthogonal to one another. I added Normalization to vectors basically every step of the way, and also tried computing new vectors based on cross products, to try to ensure that they always remained perpendicular to one another, but even then they were not perfectly orthogonal. I'm guessing this is due to floating point math not being perfectly precise.
Note that I regenerate the mShipRotation matrix every Update method, so it cannot be accumulating drift or inaccuracies directly. I think that applying multiple Quarternion rotations may be accumulating error (as I can do one rotation just fine), but my attempts to fix it have not worked.
In short:
I can pitch/roll/yaw relative to the world axes x, y, and z just
fine. It's just not what the player would expect to happen as the
rolling/pitching/yawing is not relative to the ship, but to the
world.
I can roll, pitch, or yaw around the ship's local axes (Front/Back/Top/Bottom/Left/Right) just fine, but only one at a time. Any combination of them will cause the ship to spiral and deform rapidly.
I've tried Quaternions and Matrices. I've tried suggestions I've found in various forums, but ultimately do not wind up with a working solution. Often people recommend using Quaternion.CreateFromYawPitchRoll, not really realizing that the intent is to have a ship rotate about its own (constantly changing) axes, and not the (fixed) world axes.
Any ideas? Given a situation where you are given the roll, pitch, and yaw about a ship's front, right, and top vectors, how would you go about creating the rotation matrix?

You seem to be applying your overall angles (yawRadians, pitchRadians, rollRadians) to your local axis in your methods 2 & 3. These values are married to the world axis and have no meaning in local space. The root of your problem is wanting to hang onto the 3 angles.
In local space, use an angular amount that is the amount you want to rotate between frames. If you only pitched up 0.002f radians since the last frame, that would be what you would use when you rotate around the vRight axis.
This will screw with your overall angle values (yawRadians, pitchRadians, & rollRadians) and render them useless but most folks who stick with 3d programming quickly drop the angle approach to storing the orientation anyway.
Simply rotate your matrix or quaternion little by little each frame around your local axis and store the orientation in that structure (the quat or matrix) instead of the 3 angles.
There is no worries about gimbal lock when you are rotating a matrix about local axis like this. You would have to have 90 degree rotations between frames to bring that into the picture.
If you want to avoid error accumulation use a quat to store the orientation and normalize it each frame. Then the matrix you send to the effect will be made each frame from the quat and will be ortho-normal. Even if you didn't use a quat and stored your orientation in a matrix it would take hours or days to accumulate enough error to be visually noticeable.
This blog might help: http://stevehazen.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/matrix-basics-how-to-step-away-from-storing-an-orientation-as-3-angles/

I think this might be what you're looking for:
http://forums.create.msdn.com/forums/t/33807.aspx
I'm pretty sure that CreateFromAxisAngle is the way to go.

Gradual cursor move algorithm - Kinect SDK

I am building a Kinect SDK WPF Applicaiton and using the Kinect to move a "cursor"/hand object.
The problem i am having is that at 30 frames a second the cursor is actually jumping around a bit erratically because of the precision of the Kinect (i.e. while holding your hand still the object moves within a 5px space).
I am planning on writing an algorithm that doesn't simply move the X/Y of my "cursor" sprint to the right position on the screen, but behaves more like a "move the hand towards this X/Y co-ordinate" so that it is a more smooth movement.
Can someone point me to a good one that someone else has written so i can avoid reinventing the wheel.
I understand that this is probably pretty common, but as i am more of a business developer i am not sure of the name for such a feature so apologies in advance if its a n00b question.

When I worked with the Kinect, I just used some simple math (which I think is called linear regression) to move to a point some distance between the cursor's current location and its target location. Get the location of the cursor, get the location the user's hand is at (translated to screen coordinates), then move the cursor to some point between those.
float currentX = ..., currentY = ..., targetX = ..., targetY = ...;
float diffX = targetX - currentX;
float diffY = targetY - currentY;
float delta = 0.5f; // 0 = no movement, 1 = move directly to target point.
currentX = currentX + delta * diffX;
currentY = currentY + delta * diffY;
You'll still get jittering, depending on the delta, but it will be much smoother and generally in a smaller area.
On a related note, have you taken a look at the Kinect's skeleton smoothing parameters? You can actually let the SDK handle some of the filtering.

Consider your input values (those jumping positions) as a signal with both low and high frequency parts. The low frequencies represent the rough position/movement while the high frequency parts contain the fast jumping within smaller distances.
So what you need or look for is a low pass filter. That filters out the high frequency parts and leaves the rough (but as accurate as the Kinect can get) position over, if you manage to set it up with the right parameter. This parameter is the crossover frequency for the filter. You have to play around a bit and you will see.
An implementation example for time-discrete values would be from here (originally from wikipedia):
static final float ALPHA = 0.15f;
protected float[] lowPass( float[] input, float[] output ) {
if ( output == null ) return input;
for ( int i=0; i<input.length; i++ ) {
output[i] = output[i] + ALPHA * (input[i] - output[i]);
}
return output;
}
You can put the last values of both the X and Y components of your position vectors into this function to smooth them out (input[0] for X and input[1] for Y, output[0] and output[1] are results of the previous function call).
Like I already said, you have to find a good balance for the smoothing factor ALPHA (0 ≤ ALPHA ≤ 1):
Too big and the signal will not get smoothed enough, the effect wont be sufficient
Too small and the signal will be smoothed 'too much', the cursor will lag behind the users movement, too much inertia
(If you look at the formula newout = out + alpha * (in - out), you see that with a alpha value of 0, you just take the old out value again, therefore the value will never change; while with a value of 1 you have newout = out + in - out that means you dont smooth anything but always take the newest value)

One very simple idea for solving this problem would be to display the cursor at a location that's the average of some past number of positions. For example, suppose that you track the last five locations of the hand and then display the cursor at that position. Then if the user's hand is relatively still, the jerkiness from frame to frame should be reasonably low, because the last five frames will have had the hand in roughly the same position and the noise should cancel out. If the user then moves the cursor across the screen, the cursor will animate as it moves from its old position to the new position, since as you factor in the last five positions of the hand the average position will slowly interpolate between its old and new positions.
This approach is very easily tweaked. You could transform the data points so that old points are weighted more or less than new points, and could adjust the length of the history you keep.
Hope this helps!