The real question is rather simple: you can define the "container" using a
shape:
 sphere <0,0,0>, 2

but you can't perform any type of modifications to that sphere, such as

sphere <0,0,0>, 2 scale * .2

so even if it is simply defining the limits of the isosurface, which I
understand, I wonder why you can't apply scale, rotate, or other
transformations to the container.

The second question is why other shapes besides the box and sphere can't be
used; does anyone know the history/reasoning behind that?
Rather than intersecting the isosurface itself with other shapes, I just
thought it might be useful to have means to transform the container or use
other shapes directly as the container; that would be the simplest solution
for my purposes.
Best,
D.


"Andy Cocker" <big### [at] mariner9fsnetcouk> wrote in message
news:3b5af336@news.povray.org...
> I may have misunderstood your problem, but couldn't you intersect the
> isosurface with your desired primitive ie cone, cylinder etc? Then you
could
> apply all your rotates and scales to the intersected primitive.
>
> Andy
>
> "Dennis Milller" <dhm### [at] mediaonenet> wrote in message
> news:3b5a415a@news.povray.org...
> > Well to clarify, the shape of the contained_by object is very clear (a
box
> > or a sphere) in some points of the animations that I am working on. I'm
> > trying to find out if there are any ways to modify those shapes, which
are
> > like a frame for the isosurface. Why you can't rotate or scale the
> > contained-by object independent of the isosurface itself or for that
> matter,
> > use other types of contained by shapes (cylinder, cone, etc.).
> > Anyone know?
> > thanks,
> > Dennis
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message