Wasn't it How Camp who wrote:
>Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>>   It doesn't crash here. However, I wonder if the problem might be in
>> that X0 is getting *huge* values.
>
>Heh, I agree that the values are silly.  But I don't understand why those exact
>same values are accepted for both Lines #1 and #2, but not #3.  Where exactly
>are the large values screwing things up?

It's clearly in the processing of the automatic bounding slabs.

Perhaps rounding errors are causing some of the bounding slabs to have 
negative volume. If the rotation calculations are accurate to 1 part in 
10^26 then that error could be larger than 0.1, the radius of the 
sphere. I tried to check out this theory by looking at max_extents and 
min_extents, but they seem to only return 6 digit accuracy, so the 
interesting spheres all appear have volume zero.

-- 
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure

Post a reply to this message