"Dennis Milller" <dhm### [at] mediaonenet> wrote in message
news:3b5b8127$1@news.povray.org...
> The real question is rather simple: you can define the "container" using a
> shape:
>  sphere <0,0,0>, 2
>
> but you can't perform any type of modifications to that sphere, such as
>
> sphere <0,0,0>, 2 scale * .2
>
> so even if it is simply defining the limits of the isosurface, which I
> understand, I wonder why you can't apply scale, rotate, or other
> transformations to the container.
>
> The second question is why other shapes besides the box and sphere can't
be
> used; does anyone know the history/reasoning behind that?
> Rather than intersecting the isosurface itself with other shapes, I just
> thought it might be useful to have means to transform the container or use
> other shapes directly as the container; that would be the simplest
solution
> for my purposes.

Simplicity of the bounding shape is most likely the reason it is box or
sphere only and not just anything else like CSG shapes, etcetera.  The
bounds must contain an equation of sorts so your suggestion is pretty much
to use an equation to contain an equation.  At least that's my uneducated
guess.
Could be much more to it than that.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message