On 26 Jul 2005 01:00:48 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>  Thirdly, although this is completely irrelevant and only a question
>of semantics, you are not truely "bending" an isosurface: You are
>creating a new isosurface function which looks like a bent version
>of the original
>
>  In any case, I think it would be much better to answer like:
>  "One possible solution is to model your object using isosurface
>functions. Isosurfaces can be bent easily."

LOL
"The trials of an artist, in a maths based community" :-)


Regards
        Stephen

Post a reply to this message