"Trevor G Quayle" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >

>
> I didn't mean this was an actual mistake in the docs.  The docs makes sense
> if you remember that they are using <0,-1,0>.  If you assume (as I did the
> first time I went through) that "up" is <0,1,0>, then the docs seem wrong.
> Hope I didn't confuse you any more than necessary...
>

Thanks.  What a relief! ;-)

Yeah, I had to reorient my own thinking about "slopes" when I first read the
slope pattern docs. My school math classes all those years ago drilled into
me that a slope of 0 was, so to speak,  "horizontal", and a slope of +1 was
45-deg. upward. (And a slope approaching vertical had a value approaching
infinity!) Yet it makes sense why POV treats "slope" differently, confining
its value between 0 and 1 to represent object normals varying between +1
and -1.  (You math folks, please correct me if I'm out of my depth here.) I
guess the only really "confusing" thing is that the slope pattern is called
that...though I can't think of a more appropriate term.

Ken

Post a reply to this message