Chris B nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 12/04/2006 09:52:
> Hi Gyscos,
> 
> First, on a point of protocol, it is not very polite to post long SDL 
> listings, most of which have nothing at all to do with the problem you are 
> experiencing.
> You posted nearly 800 lines of poorly structured code. To expect people to 
> find the offending section is, IMHO not reasonable. Hopefully you know your 
> code sufficiently well that you should have been able to easily chop out all 
> of the objects that were not relevant to your problem.
> 
> Nevertheless, it seems to me that there is something strange happening here. 
> I've duplicated this problem in the following short snippet of SDL.
> Maybe someone else will be able to explain what is causing this, because 
> it's beyond my experience.
> 
> 
> camera {location <0.025,0.01,-0.025>  look_at  0}
> light_source {<-0.1,0.1,0.1> rgb 1}
> 
> box {<-1,-1,0>,<0,1,1> pigment {color rgb <0,0,1>}}
> plane {y,0 pigment { color rgb <1,0,0> }}
> 
> // Problem Trigger
> box {<100,0,-1>,<101,1,0>  pigment {color rgb 1 }}
> 
> 
> The first box is effectively sliced in two by  the plane. The light source 
> is in the upper section of the box and the camera is pointing at the origin 
> where the plane and the box cut through each other. This renders without 
> artifacts until another box is added, whereupon the artifacts appear at the 
> junction of the first box and the plane.
> 
> The second box is nowhere near the first and can be above, below, or, as in 
> this case, touching the plane without changing the artifacts. If the second 
> box is commented out, the artifacts dissapear.
> 
> Has anyone seen this before?
> 
> Regards,
> Chris B.
> 
> 
> 
> 
Just tested with 3.7 beta. The artefact is *always* present, even with the second box
commented out!
Test with and without the +b2 switch.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Jehovah's Witnesses #2: May we have a moment of your time to show you some of our
shit?

Post a reply to this message