Dan Connelly wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

No, I'm fairly sure I meant (and mean) four; a tetrahedron. I wasn't thinking
of the box so much as a 3D object that's a bit more flexible. The metabox (the
flat one, anyway) could be made from a union (or merge, etc.) of a few
tetrahedrons but there would be many other uses, e.g. most meshes could be
made solid(!) by adding a fourth point (somewhere in the middle of the
mesh--the number of extra points needed would depend on the mesh's shape) to
each triangle and making them tetrahedrons instead.

I guess the prism object would work here too, with some work, but that's still
not as nice as just having the object itself.

just a thought :)

Post a reply to this message