Le 12/09/2016 à 22:14, clipka a écrit :
> 
> Note that by default this is just the other way round for isosurfaces
> (which had annoyed me multiple times already); for easier use, the new
> pattern is therefore accompanied by an extension to the isosurface syntax:
> 
>     isosurface {
>       ...
>       polarity FLOAT
>       ...
>     }
> 
> Setting `polarity` to a positive value causes above-threshold values to
> be interpreted as inside, and below-threshold values as outside, rather
> than the other way round.

what would be the difference with "inverse" ?
(just not reinventing the wheel ?)

Post a reply to this message