Hello friends,

I'm not sure wether this has already been adressed but I haven't read it.
The following container won't work in isosurfaces:
contained_by { box { <-1,1,-1>,<1,-1,1> }

But this one works:
contained_by { box { <-1,-1,-1>,<1,1,1> }

I found that MegaPOV do the same, but I don't like it... Boxes can normally
be described in any order I want; upside down or inside out.. This
"restriction" seems illogical and is not found in "clipped_by" so just for
making things more transparant for the users, this could be changed.. in my
humble opinion.

Regards,
Hugo

Post a reply to this message

Hugo wrote:
> 
> Hello friends,
> 
> I'm not sure wether this has already been adressed but I haven't read it.
> The following container won't work in isosurfaces:
> contained_by { box { <-1,1,-1>,<1,-1,1> }
> 
> But this one works:
> contained_by { box { <-1,-1,-1>,<1,1,1> }
> 
> I found that MegaPOV do the same, but I don't like it... Boxes can normally
> be described in any order I want; upside down or inside out.. This
> "restriction" seems illogical and is not found in "clipped_by" so just for
> making things more transparant for the users, this could be changed.. in my
> humble opinion.

The reason is that the box in the 'contained_by' statement is not the same
as the povray box shape.  It's just a way to describe the borders of the
isosurface with similar, but not necessarily identical syntax.  

NTL, it should be easily possible to fix this particular problem with a
minor change.  

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

In article <3bc6ffd9@news.povray.org> , "Hugo" <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote:

> I'm not sure wether this has already been adressed but I haven't read it.
> The following container won't work in isosurfaces:
> contained_by { box { <-1,1,-1>,<1,-1,1> }
>
> But this one works:
> contained_by { box { <-1,-1,-1>,<1,1,1> }
>
> I found that MegaPOV do the same, but I don't like it... Boxes can normally
> be described in any order I want; upside down or inside out.. This
> "restriction" seems illogical and is not found in "clipped_by" so just for
> making things more transparant for the users, this could be changed.. in my
> humble opinion.

Hi Hugo,

This should have been fixed a long time ago.  As it turns out there is a bug
so it will only correct the X and Z axis, but miss the Y axis.  This will be
corrected in the next beta.

Thank you for finding this bug!


    Thorsten


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich
e-mail: mac### [at] povrayorg

I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

Although the 'box' keyword here is good and descriptive, it can be extremely
confusing, however. It easily leads the user to think that it's a regular
box *object*, which you can, for example, transform at will (and then the
user sends a "bug" report of this inexistent "bug").

  It's a pitty that it's too late to change this.

-- 
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}//                     - Warp -

Post a reply to this message