Le 25/05/2016 21:50, William F Pokorny a écrit :
> On 05/25/2016 08:06 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> Le 04/05/2016 à 17:42, clipka a écrit :
>>
>> Please provide some suggestions about an acceptable syntax.
> 
> Forgive me for being slow to understand, but is the lemon/barrel/ogive(1) then going
to be added as new object and the current ovus made at little more flexible - rather
than folding all the function recently discussed into one object?
> 
> Guess, my thinking is if we are doing the new barrel object, we can duplicate the
new ovus function for which we need syntax by adding spheres to the end of the new
lemon/barrel/ogive.
> 
> Suppose taking it the other way around, if we update the ovus only, nothing stops us
from chopping off the ends to match the lemon/barrel/ogive. Though we'd not have the
'open' mode that way.
> 
> (1) - Taking the barrel/ogive to be the improved ovus less the two end spheres ?
> 
> Bill P.
> 

It is a bit more complex than that.

lemon is not an ovus without spheres, or rather, to use a manual lemon with additional
spheres to make an ovus, the computation is not simple. (no, you do not just put the
sphere at the vertex of lemon).
 ( And you get coincident surfaces problem too, and internal surfaces, useless
computations... things that are better handled in code than later in SDL. )

The same way that putting spheres at the ends of a conical frustum does not make a
nice segment of linear sphere_sweep.
It's easy with a cylinder, but become more subtle when the radius are different.

lemon is similar to cone, even a bit better: you can get a true lemon (mathematical
object), or a frustum of lemon. With SDL cone, you get a false mathematical cone or a
conical frustum (because a true cone would be infinite along its axis, both ways, and
povray's cone is
actually only a right circular cone, not all cones)

Post a reply to this message