"Patrick Elliott" <sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:MPG.19b6fb512886d4d9989883@news.povray.org...
> That is why I mentioned that there should be some way to scale things as
> well.

> However, this comes into a problem. Lets say that you are making a scene
> with objects in are defined by someone else in a different scales (like
> microscopic) and you want them to be 'visible' in a scene that you are
> making on a more normal scale of inches. Suddenly you have to shift
> definitions to properly include the smaller scale objects, but a normal
> include can't do that and one using macros takes extra parsing time you
> that could add up fast in a long animation. A built in method that you
> can rescale with one simple command would be far easier than using an
> include file.

What could be more built-in than "scale"?

Eg, let's say you have a room constructed at realistic dimensions (meters or
feet), and you want to show an object which is about 5 nanometers across.
If you want the object to appear as if it were 3 feet across, you would use:

scale(3*feet)/(5*nanometers)

Should do the trick, it's already built in, and it uses the include files
nicely.

--
...Chambers
bdc### [at] yahoocom
http://www.geocities.com/bdchambers79/
Images, 3 Player Chess, and More!

Post a reply to this message