Oh, alright, sorry, I misread "max_trace" as "max_trace_level". Max_trace
fixed it. But how come in CSG it tests for parts of the isosurface outside
of what has been cut off from the isosurface? Why doesn't it only test the
parts of the isosurface that have a chance of being visible?

- Slime
[ http://www.teja.nu/slime/ ]
[ http://www.teja.nu/slime/images/ ]

"Mike Williams" <mik### [at] nospamplease> wrote in message
news:fPI8+DALTtr7Ew$z@econym.demon.co.uk...
> Wasn't it Slime who wrote:
> >By golly, they *are* holes. How strange. Because they're (a) the holes
that
> >should be there, plus (b) holes that exactly mimic where i see other
parts
> >of the isosurface when the plane is not cut out from it. (try rendering
the
> >scene without the plane, and remember where peices of the isosurface are,
> >and then rerender the scene with the plane cut out, and you'll see that
the
> >places where the peices used to be but aren't are now holes in other
parts
> >of the isosurface hit by the same ray.)
> >
> >Looking at it from the opposite side, however, doesn't show the extra
holes
> >that I explained in (b). set background{rgb 1} and change the camera
> >location from <0,0,-15> to <0,0,15> and you'll see that those holes
> >disappear. If you then set the plane's normal from <1,1,-.5> to <1,1,.5>,
> >you'll see that new holes have been cut out on the side that we were
> >originally looking at.
> >
> >I still think there's something strange here. I can render some images if
> >need be.
>
>
> Did you read my points (2) and (3) or just the bit about the background?
>
> In particular point (3) makes a big difference to which parts of the
> scene you're actually asking it to render when viewed from different
> directions.
>
> With all my three point's applied, I think you'll find that everything
> behaves correctly.
>
> --
> Mike Williams
> Gentleman of Leisure

Post a reply to this message