> The very fact that you ask the question implies the probability you can
> understand it is low simply because you lack the background.  This
> information is not going to be made available in a general manner.  It will
> only result in confusion by those who don't understand the implications of
> the information or the background.  You can easily find out the details by
> taking a look at the source code:  If you cannot find it there on your own,
> you won't be able to make use of anything anybody can tell you about it
> anyway.

Ok, I understand. I'll try to look at the code but of course it'll take 
a small while to get a grasp of it. On the positive side: maybe it'll 
help me understand more of the "inner life" of POV-Ray. Lucky you chose 
C back then...

Severi Salminen

Post a reply to this message

Severi Salminen wrote:

> Thanks for the info. I actually tried and multiplied everything in my 
> secene by 100 so that the smalles dimension is now about 0.5 units and 
> largest is about 600 units and it looks like all the artifacts 
> disappeared. I also noticed some very slight changes with radiosity but 
> I believe the result is now more accurate.

I've always used centimeters as units for "architectural" (room, full
building, furniture...) work, and never had a problem.

That's good because, since I can't read C source code, I am too dumb
to understand presision issues...

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message