 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Someone else might know this. There might be very good reasons to not go
to
> a smaller value for Small_Tolerance in the first place since it is a
factor
> for the ray tracing itself I guess.
For some objects defined by high-order equations, .001 is as low as you can
safely go.
However, I wouldn't think that'd be the case with most objects that have
flat edges... I'd expect a smaller tolerance to be used. *shrug*
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Julien Gourdon" <jul### [at] cnedra org> wrote:
>
> y normal ? Was not this supposed to be horizontal ? :)
For those of us belonging to "CAD school" (like yours truly), the answer is
DEFINITELY NO! :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hughes, b. <omn### [at] charternet> wrote:
> 0.001 was picked arbitrarily, as I recall.
Since it's arbitrary, I agree that it should be a value which is much
less likely to be used by anyone by chance. 0.001 is such a value that it's
extremely likely that someone will use some day. However, if it was
something like 0.00139263205, then the odds are practically nonexistent.
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Since it's arbitrary, I agree that it should be a value which is much
> less likely to be used by anyone by chance. 0.001 is such a value that
it's
> extremely likely that someone will use some day. However, if it was
> something like 0.00139263205, then the odds are practically nonexistent.
Oh, you know how it is. *Some* jerk would find it and complain. ;)
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:31:49 +0100, Julien Gourdon <jul### [at] cnedraorg> wrote:
> > I'm not sure how you have recognize that this is a horizontal plane and not
> > vertical ... ;-)
>
> y normal ? Was not this supposed to be horizontal ? :)
When you lie in bed and your view is rotated about 90 degrees, horizont is
still at the same place, not rotated. The appearance of view by itself does
not define horizontal and vertical things. Meaning of 'horizontal' is relative
and is influenced by assumptions about envirionment. More accurate thinking is
probably something like: "it is horizontal plane becouse 'sky' keyword in
camera statement was not changed and therefore default sky can be reached
going along y. the plane normal is also y but has nothing to do with this."
:-)
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Slime" <slm### [at] slimelandcom> wrote in message news:3e273eaf$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Oh, you know how it is. *Some* jerk would find it and complain. ;)
>
Arguably, it's better to have it rare, but not too rare - of course you could
make it pow(-1,0.5) ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
