After spending 10 minutes trying to figure out why an object with media
wasn't working, I finally realised that I hadn't included the keyword
'hollow'.  That started me thinking why aren't all objects automatically
hollow?  What advantage is there to a non-hollow object?

Cheers, PoD.

Post a reply to this message

PoD wrote:

> After spending 10 minutes trying to figure out why an object with media
> wasn't working, I finally realised that I hadn't included the keyword
> 'hollow'.  That started me thinking why aren't all objects automatically
> hollow?  What advantage is there to a non-hollow object?
>
> Cheers, PoD.

  How else would you correctly model a crystal ball ?

K.Tyler

Post a reply to this message

PoD <pod### [at] merlinnetau> wrote:
: After spending 10 minutes trying to figure out why an object with media
: wasn't working, I finally realised that I hadn't included the keyword
: 'hollow'.  That started me thinking why aren't all objects automatically
: hollow?  What advantage is there to a non-hollow object?

  Fog doesn't go inside non-hollow objects. This allows making for example
glass objects into fog, etc.

-- 
                                                           - Warp. -

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Mika wrote:
> 
> PoD <pod### [at] merlinnetau> wrote:
> : After spending 10 minutes trying to figure out why an object with media
> : wasn't working, I finally realised that I hadn't included the keyword
> : 'hollow'.  That started me thinking why aren't all objects automatically
> : hollow?  What advantage is there to a non-hollow object?
> 
>   Fog doesn't go inside non-hollow objects. This allows making for example
> glass objects into fog, etc.
> 
> --
>                                                            - Warp. -

Yeah, right. I should have thought of that, but I don't use fog very
much.
Thanks for a simple and meaningful answer :)
PoD.

Post a reply to this message

PoD wrote:

> Nieminen Mika wrote:
> >
> > PoD <pod### [at] merlinnetau> wrote:
> > : After spending 10 minutes trying to figure out why an object with media
> > : wasn't working, I finally realised that I hadn't included the keyword
> > : 'hollow'.  That started me thinking why aren't all objects automatically
> > : hollow?  What advantage is there to a non-hollow object?
> >
> >   Fog doesn't go inside non-hollow objects. This allows making for example
> > glass objects into fog, etc.
> >
> > --
> >                                                            - Warp. -
>
> Yeah, right. I should have thought of that, but I don't use fog very
> much.
> Thanks for a simple and meaningful answer :)
> PoD.

Yes, but then doesn't that mean hollow-by-default would be good?  The fog would
work, media would work, everything would work . . . maybe.

- Willow

Post a reply to this message

> > > PoD <pod### [at] merlinnetau> wrote:
				What advantage is there to a non-hollow object?
and the Magills responded later:
 
> Yes, but then doesn't that mean hollow-by-default would be good? 

	Maybe.   Better yet, how about "hollow" or its just-now-proposed
antonym "solid" NOT within any object setting the default until overridden
("hollow 1" and "hollow 0" will do if we prefer to keep reserved words to a
minimum at the cost of clarity) or reset?

	-Robert Dawson

Post a reply to this message