In article <3f8a1ac3@news.povray.org>,
 "Hughes, B." <omn### [at] charternet> wrote:

> Themselves, yes; on a per individual primitive basis, having only a shadowed
> side versus lit side. So what I was saying is that if a sphere and cone are
> next to each other, in a union, they don't cast a shadow onto each other. I
> guess your explanation about bounding below is the reason why.

But they do...I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you talking about a 
bare union, a union with no_shadow, or a bare union as a looks_like 
object? A shadowless object won't self-shadow, but even a shadowless 
object has a lit side and a dark side.


> Just to give it a try, I checked what you suggested about manual bounding
> within the CSG union, except still for a looks_like object, and still aren't
> any shadows. I think it's been said that looks_like is only a shortcut to
> creating a light plus object, not the only way available and perhaps that's
> why no one has deemed it necessary to change. Or, as you said, there might
> be some difficulties is allowing shadowing via the internal bounding
> hierarchy?

The internal bounding heirarchy does not cause any problems with 
bounding. I was talking about the possibility of the union splitting 
behaving unexpectedly when combined with the looks_like feature. I think 
you're seeing a problem where there isn't one, or just not clearly 
explaining what the problem is...

-- 
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