Dan Connelly wrote:

> Okay -- we agree.  It depends how one defines "bug".
> But I agree POV code is not incorrect.
>
> Dan
>
> > :>   No, it's not a bug.
> > : No.   It is a bug.
> >   No, it isn't a bug.
> >   It's a computer limitation, not a bug.
>
> --
> http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/

  Reminds me of a Monty Python skit --
Yes it is !
No it isn,t !
Yeeess it is !!
Isn't !
Is too ! ....

Now for my 2 cents worth.

We all agree it is a nuisance. And my understanding of the
ambiguity is that it occurs at a level where the decimal
places are out somewhere around 5, 6, or more places.
    Fine ! Why not put a trap directive in the program
(for csg only of course) that automatically re-scales the
object so this doesn't occur.
    I know some of you math geek's are squirming in your
chairs right now but the facts are you can model a molecule
in hundreds of pov units. It's all a matter of perspective.
    So the program sees a situation where the csg operation
is going to have perfectly aligned surfaces. Bing ! it quite
at random laps one surface over the other say by 0.0001.
    This would be enough to rid the coincident surface from
the scene and calculating whose surface, is whose, is no longer
a problem.
    If there is some one out there complains that they actually
use a scaling of .0001 or less in his/her scenes then I think
they need to get a life. The human eye cannot resolve these kinds
of distances anyway and the camera would have to be almost
touching the object to see the difference anyway.

    I dare to challenge your sensibilities.

Ken

Post a reply to this message