> Ignoring the issue of rand-function and TRULY random, I suspect you're
missing
> the point.
>
> Imagine a disk, now take a random distance along the radius, and then a
random
> rotation. You will get a disproportionate number of points near the center
of
> the disk. However, finding truly random points within a square that
contains the
> disk, and then checking whether they are inside the disk will produce a
proper
> random distrib. within the confines of the rand method.

Ah, okay, I get it. You mean with the box approach, the points in the
corners of the box, outside the sphere, will fall out, but in my case,
they'll be introduced into the sphere. Hence a larger distribution of points
in the "axis-corners" of the sphere, right?

Then you're both right about that. Still, depending on the amount of
lightsources required, I'd say there is no need to go into the hassle of the
more difficult approach with if-statements and all that. But that's probably
more an issue of taste, cause with random distribution, it *sometimes*
doesn't matter if its even or not...

-- 
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Email: tim.nikias (@) nolights.de




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.536 / Virus Database: 331 - Release Date: 03.11.2003

Post a reply to this message