 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Almost forgot.
Is this something that can be fixed in the future version or the next beta?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: Is sphere_sweep known to be troublesome?
Date: 28 Mar 2010 04:33:38
Message: <4baf1462$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28.03.10 07:25, Woody wrote:
> Sorry for joining the conversation late. I only saw the thread after making the
> post at
>
> http://news.povray.org/web.4baed21667547a80876671bb0%40news.povray.org
>
> It appears ot be of the same problem.
No, that code uses a linear spline for which bounding works.
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 28.03.2010 10:33, schrieb Thorsten Froehlich:
> On 28.03.10 07:25, Woody wrote:
>> Sorry for joining the conversation late. I only saw the thread after
>> making the
>> post at
>>
>> http://news.povray.org/web.4baed21667547a80876671bb0%40news.povray.org
>>
>> It appears ot be of the same problem.
>
> No, that code uses a linear spline for which bounding works.
Given that the bug reported by the OP has two components - garbled
geometry /and/ a missing bounding box - I'd rather say yes, as far as
the garbled geometry is concerned.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trf de> wrote:
> On 28.03.10 07:25, Woody wrote:
> > Sorry for joining the conversation late. I only saw the thread after making the
> > post at
> >
> > http://news.povray.org/web.4baed21667547a80876671bb0%40news.povray.org
> >
> > It appears ot be of the same problem.
>
> No, that code uses a linear spline for which bounding works.
>
> Thorsten
I'm assuming when you refer to bounding you are referring to the specific
bounding mentioned in the documentation at
http://www.povray.org/documentation/view/3.6.1/323/
When doesn't this work?
For what type of splines?
I'm having trouble choosing a bounding box, or size and position, that gets rid
of these unwanted effects.
Any suggestions?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: Is sphere_sweep known to be troublesome?
Date: 28 Mar 2010 12:01:17
Message: <4baf7d4d$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28.03.10 15:43, clipka wrote:
> Am 28.03.2010 10:33, schrieb Thorsten Froehlich:
>> On 28.03.10 07:25, Woody wrote:
>>> Sorry for joining the conversation late. I only saw the thread after
>>> making the
>>> post at
>>>
>>> http://news.povray.org/web.4baed21667547a80876671bb0%40news.povray.org
>>>
>>> It appears ot be of the same problem.
>>
>> No, that code uses a linear spline for which bounding works.
>
> Given that the bug reported by the OP has two components - garbled
> geometry /and/ a missing bounding box - I'd rather say yes, as far as
> the garbled geometry is concerned.
The geometry problems are the result of the bounding going wrong.
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 28.03.2010 18:01, schrieb Thorsten Froehlich:
> The geometry problems are the result of the bounding going wrong.
>
> Thorsten
No, definitely not - geometry code *MUST NOT* rely on any undesired
surfaces being eliminated by bounding - if only because rotating the
object may grow the bounding box.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: Is sphere_sweep known to be troublesome?
Date: 28 Mar 2010 18:06:55
Message: <4bafd2ff$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28.03.10 19:36, clipka wrote:
>> The geometry problems are the result of the bounding going wrong.
>>
>> Thorsten
>
> No, definitely not - geometry code *MUST NOT* rely on any undesired
> surfaces being eliminated by bounding - if only because rotating the
> object may grow the bounding box.
I think there is some miscommunication: I am not saying that the bounding
and the object depend on each other in any unusual way. I am just saying
that for certain cases with cubic splines the bounding will be too small.
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 29.03.2010 00:06, schrieb Thorsten Froehlich:
> I think there is some miscommunication: I am not saying that the
> bounding and the object depend on each other in any unusual way. I am
> just saying that for certain cases with cubic splines the bounding will
> be too small.
Well, that's what we /will/ see once the bounding has been
"quasi-fixed". But obviously it's not what we're seeing in the OP's
scenario.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
