Jim Holsenback wrote:

> Having trouble getting a formula or two to render like in the documention is 
> the issue .....

OK. Which formulas?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:4ad20183@news.povray.org...
> OK. Which formulas?

First check out the thread in povray.documentation.inbuilt posted by SharkD 
... titled "Problem with formula in blob ..." for background, then go to the 
Wiki section here:

http://wiki.povray.org/content/Documentation:Reference_Section_4#Blob

I've isolated the formula in question on a talk page so you can fiddle with 
it if you like.  There are two ways to get to the talk page. Either use the 
"Discussion" link (lower left of each page header) or the "talk" link in the 
box just below that .... have at 'er!

BTW: might need to get a wiki login if you haven't already done so!

Thanks
Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> OK. Which formulas?
> 
> First check out the thread in povray.documentation.inbuilt posted by SharkD 
> ... titled "Problem with formula in blob ..." for background

All it seems to say is that there should be a "min" in there. What do 
you actually want to change in the formula?

> then go to the 
> Wiki section here:
> 
> http://wiki.povray.org/content/Documentation:Reference_Section_4#Blob
> 
> I've isolated the formula in question on a talk page so you can fiddle with 
> it if you like.

I notice the brackets around the fraction aren't tall enough to enclose 
it properly. You can fix it like so:

   ( \frac{...}{...} )

becomes

   \left( \frac{...}{...} \right)

I should perhaps also point out that, technically, when TeX sees 
<math>cat</math>, it interprets it as "c * a * t", which probably isn't 
what you want. Use <math>\text{\it cat}</math> instead. (There's a 
subtle difference in the letter spacing - and also the typeface is 
slightly different.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> Isn't that just nausiating to look at?
>
> (Yes, it's Saturday Night, and I'm playing with SketchUp while listening
> to Jesus on Es.)

Hehe, this is on level with someone using Paint to draw a reflective sphere 
over a checkered plane, and ending up with a red circle over a green 
rectangle :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> Hehe, this is on level with someone using Paint to draw a reflective 
> sphere over a checkered plane, and ending up with a red circle over a 
> green rectangle :-)

Why thank you. I feel much better now. :-P

Meh, the tutorial videos feature all kinds of intricate models, and 
YouTube has a few people drawing highly complex stuff, but I don't see 
how it's possible...

Post a reply to this message

> Why thank you. I feel much better now. :-P

Don't feel bad, you're using totally the wrong tool to try and do something 
like you attempted.  There's a reason why Nokia don't use SketchUp to design 
their phones :-)

> Meh, the tutorial videos feature all kinds of intricate models, and 
> YouTube has a few people drawing highly complex stuff, but I don't see how 
> it's possible...

Apart from showing off, I never understood people using a tool for something 
it really isn't designed for.  If you really want to design stuff like that 
phone with nice smooth surfaces then put the effort in to learning something 
like Blender rather than SketchUp.

Post a reply to this message

>> Why thank you. I feel much better now. :-P
> 
> Don't feel bad, you're using totally the wrong tool to try and do 
> something like you attempted.  There's a reason why Nokia don't use 
> SketchUp to design their phones :-)
> 
>> Meh, the tutorial videos feature all kinds of intricate models, and 
>> YouTube has a few people drawing highly complex stuff, but I don't see 
>> how it's possible...
> 
> Apart from showing off, I never understood people using a tool for 
> something it really isn't designed for.  If you really want to design 
> stuff like that phone with nice smooth surfaces then put the effort in 
> to learning something like Blender rather than SketchUp.

I wonder - is there anything that SketchUp *is* the right tool for? 
Every single time I mention it, everybody says I should use Blender 
instead...

Post a reply to this message

> I wonder - is there anything that SketchUp *is* the right tool for? Every 
> single time I mention it, everybody says I should use Blender instead...

AIUI (I only tried it once ages ago when it first came out) it is meant for 
quickly designing simple, straight-lined 3D objects.  Like simplified 
versions of buildings that mostly consist of cuboids or angled parts. 
Wasn't it originally released to allow people to add 3D versions of 
buildings to Google Earth?

Post a reply to this message

>> I wonder - is there anything that SketchUp *is* the right tool for? 
>> Every single time I mention it, everybody says I should use Blender 
>> instead...
> 
> AIUI (I only tried it once ages ago when it first came out) it is meant 
> for quickly designing simple, straight-lined 3D objects.  Like 
> simplified versions of buildings that mostly consist of cuboids or 
> angled parts. Wasn't it originally released to allow people to add 3D 
> versions of buildings to Google Earth?

Indeed, there's a big 3-part tutorial showing somebody importing a plan 
from a CAD program, tracing the walls, and cutting all the doors and 
windows. The result is pretty impressive, actually...

My own attempts to do something similar are far less convincing.

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:4ad228ec$1@news.povray.org...
> All it seems to say is that there should be a "min" in there. What do you 
> actually want to change in the formula?

Exactly ...

> I notice the brackets around the fraction aren't tall enough to enclose it 
> properly. You can fix it like so:
>
>   ( \frac{...}{...} )
>
> becomes
>
>   \left( \frac{...}{...} \right)

OK ... this was helpful ... thanks

> I should perhaps also point out that, technically, when TeX sees 
> <math>cat</math>, it interprets it as "c * a * t", which probably isn't 
> what you want. Use <math>\text{\it cat}</math> instead. (There's a subtle 
> difference in the letter spacing - and also the typeface is slightly 
> different.)

The \it tag (italics?) was causing me grief. It gave a lexing error ... 
failed to parse. With the \text tag alone I get normal typeface, without it 
I get the italics typeface. it doesn't seem to be behaving as you suggest.

Here's what it looks like now:
http://wiki.povray.org/content/Documentation_Talk:Reference_Section_4

I think it looks like what Mike was getting at ... correct?

Jim

Post a reply to this message