>   I don't think there's an analytical solution for the intersection of a cone
> and any given mathematical surface.
>   You have probably heard about raytracers which use cones instead of rays,
> but those raytracers most probably support just triangles (the intersection
> of a cone and a triangle is possible and rather easy to calculate).
Nope, never heard of.  But I can imagine it isn't easy to find the intersection
of a cone and any surface.  However, all you need to know is if there could be
an intersection.  Isn't it easier to find out that the cone cannot intersect the
surface than to find out if it does intersect?  And if it is possible that it
intersects, maybe that's reason enough to supersample the pixel?  I mean: you
don't have to find the intersecting points, maybe you don't even have to find
out if there is an intersection.  I might be enough to know there is no
intersection, and maybe that's easy to find out?  I'm not very good in
mathematics, so I'm probably just talking nonsense...

cu!
--
camera{location-z*3}#macro G(b,e)b+(e-b)*(C/50)#end#macro L(b,e,k,l)#local C=0
;#while(C<50)sphere{G(b,e),.1pigment{rgb G(k,l)}finish{ambient 1}}#local C=C+1
;#end#end L(y-x,y,x,x+y)L(y,-x-y,x+y,y)L(-x-y,-y,y,y+z)L(-y,y,y+z,x+y)L(0,x+y,
<.5,1,.5>,x)L(0,x-y,<.5,1,.5>,x)               // ZK http://www.povplace.be.tf

Post a reply to this message