In article <Xns### [at] 204213191226>,
 "Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <raf### [at] raf256com> wrote:

> I'm afraid that maybe YOU don't understand, I know that coidencident 
> surfaces that are *ideal* in same spaces can not be improved (by any 
> floating point math).

Well, why didn't you give an example of something that would actually be 
fixed by your suggestion? You give two coincident surface errors as 
examples, and then suggest increasing precision to avoid errors, what do 
you expect people to think?


> But I found that i.e. box sized -9.998, +9.998 with checker (scale 1) has 
> ALSO this problem. If size was 10.000 etc - I would understand this, but I 
> especialy used 9.998 to *avoid* the problem.

Try 10. The checker pattern is offset internally to avoid this problem 
without making the user translate things all the time. You just either 
canceled this out, or are seeing an unrelated problem.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message