"DonF" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> However, after the above adjustments of some small values to 0.0 are completed,
> a few of the values are recalculated, which once again results in some small
> values that are not equal to zeo, such as J for the SPEC test case.
Nice catch! I'm sure it must have taken quite a bit of digging to uncover the
root cause of this. It sounds a lot like the triangle normal bug that surfaced
a while back.
The bigger it gets, the more complicated it gets to debug... ;)
Post a reply to this message