David Fontaine wrote:
> 
> "J. Grimbert" wrote:
> 
> > If you are using any truncated cone (like cone{<0,0,0>1,<0,1,0>,0.5} )
> > be aware that there is a bug on the bounding box size (too big)
> > (for the previous cone, the box has a height of 2, not 1, and if
> > instead of 0.5 it is 0.95, the height is about 20 !!)
> >
> > This bug is present in the official 3.1g
> > (and has been reported in p.b, so no more action needed until 3.5 !)
> 
> The height is multiplied by 1/(1-rad2/rad1)? Strange.
> 

No, normal : the bounding code was made before it was
possible to have a cone truncated, so it always included
the sharp extremety of the cone.

And the bounding code was not updated 
when the second radius has been introduced for the cone.

But as I said, the bug was found, and a correction made.
A shame it was discovered lately, but in the end, all will be ok.

Post a reply to this message