"Kenneth"  wrote in message
<web.497b219ab528db0df50167bc0@news.povray.org>:
> Alas, so it seems. It's interesting that, when using only one seed()
> value--as in a still image--rand() has no problem producing endlessly
> varying values from it. (I've never *noticed* a pattern.)  So rand()
> itself isn't the problem,

You are asking two different kinds of problems here: the randomness of one
sequence versus the randomness of the mapping seed -> first term. The first
one is guaranteed (it would not be called rand() otherwise), not the first.
For all you know, the first term could be the seed itself.

Solutions have been given to pull yourself back into the first case.

It would be a nice feature, though, to have access to a strong random
function.

Post a reply to this message