Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in
news:3E83828D.A385D8F8@gmx.de: 

> 
> 
> Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> Then we are talking about exactly the same thing.
>> 
>> You said that a vector function transformation should
>> not be able to deform a box; such a transformation of
>> a box should always result in a box. From this I
>> reasoned that this would mean that that transformation
>> step would be linear.(*)
>> 
> 
> Well, i think in fact you are right but the reason is somewhat
> different - a function based transform would be somewhat difficult to
> invert and transforming objects requires the inverse transform...

Yes, I had a "diffuse" suspicion of something like
that when I wrote this:

'But wouldn't it lead to difficulties determining
the intersections between the "tracing ray" and
complex CSG objects ?'


Tor Olav

Post a reply to this message