Or you could just use the radian values… etc, etc.
But, you really ought to do what pspeed said. It takes no time to go through the tutorials and they are invaluable.
When you read this:
“Any rotation in three dimensions can be represented as a combination of an axis vector and an angle of rotation. Quaternions give a simple way to encode this axis-angle representation in four numbers and apply the corresponding rotation to a position vector representing a point relative to the origin in R3.”
You have to ignore the angle axis part. It’s sort of erroneous. I hate it when articles mention that because it makes many people believe the values make some kind of sense when they don’t. A quaternion is not simply an axis and an angle. It’s a projection on a hypersphere and just happens to have a similar number of values. Unless you are comfortable thinking in the space of a 4 dimensional sphere then it is not feasible to understand a quaternion’s values.
As said, they are magic.
As potential proof that a Quaternion and an Angle Axis are not the same thing… imagine then angle axis axis:1,0,0, angle:0… then axis:1,0,0, angle:2 * PI… then axis 1,0,0, angle:4 * PI… these are all the same Quaternion.
But the article might make for interesting reading anyway.