Mark R. wrote:
> 
> IMHO, it might be both easier (well okay, slightly easier) and more helpful to
> add a new object with four corners instead of eight.

I think, Mark, you mean 6 corners here, as this is the required
number to fully specify the planar-face structure.

Actually, I thought Chris's structure (with the exception of the
possible problem associated with the coplanarity test via
the equality test for functions of floats) was nicely elegent.
The file itself serves as a nice little tutorial on the behavior
of patches, which aren't really well explained in the documentation.

There are only two issues I can see:

1. while 8 points overspecifies a planar face object, it underspecifies
   a generalized smooth face object.   Thus Chris made assumptions
   about the nature of the nonplanar faces.

2. A solid nonplanar-face object could be constructed as well using
   CSG.... I don't volunteer, though :).

Dan

-- 
http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/

Post a reply to this message