"Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote in message
news:3c05573f@news.povray.org...
> "Greg M. Johnson" wrote: in message news:3C05481E.C2CEAFBA@aol.com...
> > No, that's not what I'm doing.
>
> You said that the red and green samples in your original post should look
> the same, but they shouldn't, because you have scaled them differently.
>
> > I scaled the x &  z dimensions of the blob component and get
> > a wacky alteration of the blob in the y!! This is not
> > mathematically correct, IFMSS. Look at the code in my original
> > post here...
>
> I did tell you that you should expect that when scaling the cylinder blob
> component non-proportionally. Just imagine that the cap is a sphere. It
> looks longer in the y dimension if you scale it longer in the y dimension,
> but it also looks longer in the y dimension if you scale it smaller in the
x
> and z dimension.
>
> It seems to me that you forget that you have not just scaled the red
> cylinder blob component down in the x and z dimensions, you have also
given
> it a larger radius (4 times as big). That's why the rounded cap of the red
> cylinder blob component is 4 times as long in the y dimension than that of
> the green cylinder blob component.
>
> I really don't see the problem. Could you explain in a more specific way
> what exactly is the wrong behavior?

You're right.  That's what's going on, basically because of the original
sizes and the strength factor too I guess.  I thought this was about
comparing regular cylinder + sphere ends with blob ones.  Seeing the pov
script I too noticed how the y scaling (or sizing) where the spikes are
extend to a distance (more or less) where the blob surface would reach to
were it not scaled on just the two axes.

--
text{ttf"arial","bob h",.1,0pigment{rgb 9}translate<-1,-.2,3>}

Post a reply to this message