In article <471f19ab@news.povray.org>, war### [at] tagpovrayorg says...
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> > I know damn well why its the way it is *now*
> 
>   Once again you do a pretty good job at hiding it.
> 
Snort. How so. I am just repeating what someone else said, that most of 
why it works as it does is a relic of how it evolved, not an intended 
design choice, which was either the best option for how to do it, or the 
best way to do it in a new design. While I might not know a lot of 
specifics, I don't notice you continuing to complain about my idea, 
after I acknowledged that you could get the two things I thought would 
be useful **without** the concept I originally suggested. I presumed the 
complete lack of any response meant that yeah, it would be OK to have 
some automated matrix creation, when direct control isn't needed, and 
that linking that via an associative pointer on the object (which if 
null would assume you plan to make the transforms yourself later), 
instead of having to explicitly tell it to use table X for frame 1-10, 
table Y for frame 11-50, etc. You just tell it, "Use this table until I 
tell you otherwise.", and no more memory gets used that with your idea 
(well, except for a few pointers to the date, but geeze...)

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message