On 09/04/2011 7:57 PM, Alain wrote:

>> I obviously did not make myself clear. Putting a single object in a
>> union is a workaround because Bishop3D does not have a local axis and if
>> you want to rotate the object around a point, that is the only way to do
>> it.
> Not at all.

Not at all, what? That I not make myself clear or that it is the only 
way to do it in Bishop3D?


>
> POV-Ray also don't have "local" axis, only 1 set of global axis.
>

I'm probably using the terminology used by Moray that is confusing you.

> If the object is named, then there is NO need to use union.
> Whenever you find yourself placing a single object in an union, use
> "object" instead.
>

I take it that you've not used either Moray or Bishop3D much. In case we 
are talking at cross purposes. My last post was in reply to a suggestion 
that Christian made about Bishop3D


> You wrongly suggers this:
> union{
> union{Object1 translate Radius rotate<x,y,z>}//NOT correct
> union{Object2 translate Radius rotate<x,y,z>}
> ...
> rotate Global_Union_Rotation
> translate Global_Object_Location
> }
>

No, what I meant was this:

union {
  sphere {  // Sphere0
   0.0, 1.000000
   translate <0.0,0.0,14.0> // Radius of revolution
  }  // end Sphere0

  rotate    <0.0,27.0,0.0> /* Required rotation about the centre of 
revolution*/
  translate <-10.0,0.0,10.00> // Centre of revolution
}

> Anyway, it's usualy beter to model all objects around the origin, scale
> and rotate them as needed, then to translate them to the desired location.

Yesss, but when using a modeller you do that then leave them where they 
are and use the method I described. Moray is different as it gives you 
an extra degree of freedom and you don't need to use an extra union.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message