Nevermind, I finally saw the mistake.  I was using the wrong function
(ellipsoid as opposed to superellipsoid)
For example:

function { - f_superellipsoid   (x,y,z,0.5,0.5) }



"Patrick Dugan" <pat### [at] usnetcomcorpcom> wrote in message
news:3e270023$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I need someone smarter than me (won't take much I assure you) to explain
how
> to create an isosurface
> that is basically the same "looking" object as a superellipsoid.  The
reason
> I want to do this is the bug
> with superellipsoids.  If I make a difference between two of them I get
odd
> parts disappearing.  I read
> in an earlier post that you could create an isosurface that was the
> equivalent of the superellipsoid without
> the problems.  How can I make an Isosurface that is basically the same as
> this superellipsoid?  Is it
> possible?  Below you see my poor stab at it, but I can't get the same
> appearance.
>
> Any help would be appreciated!
>
> Patrick Dugan
>
>
> //// This is what I want the isosurface to look like....
> superellipsoid { <1, 0.5>
>    pigment {Green}
> }
>
>
> /// This was my feeble attempt.
> isosurface {
>    function {f_ellipsoid(x,y,z, 0.5, 1, 1)}
>    threshold 1.0
>    pigment {Green}
> }
>
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message