great catch.  absolutely no reason. i think i brought that line back from some old code that probably came into existence before the rpy2rotmat did. i’ll update it. 

On Mar 24, 2014, at 9:35 AM, Andres Valenzuela <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> In systems/plants/RigidBodyGeometry.m:
> 
> > +      % project it into 2D frame
> > +      pts = Tview*pts;
> > +      
> > +      % keep only convex hull (todo: do better here)
> > +      ind = convhull(pts(1,:),pts(2,:));
> > +      z = max(pts(3,:));
> > +      
> > +      % take it back out of view coordinates
> > +      pts = Tview'*[pts(1:2,ind); repmat(z,1,length(ind))];
> > +    end
> > +    
> > +  end
> > +  
> > +  methods (Static)
> > +    function obj = parseURDFNode(node,x0,rpy,model,robotnum,options)
> > +      T= [quat2rotmat(rpy2quat(rpy)),x0; 0 0 0 1];
> Is there a reason to prefer quat2rotmat(rpy2quat(rpy)) to rpy2rotmat(rpy)? If so should we change rpy2rotmat to use this two stage approach under the hood?
> 
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
>