"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> No, this is what you may *think* is the point.

Be nice. There's no reason this discussion can't remain civil.

> Or, well, yes, in a way that *is* the point. But it's not designed with "totally
> non-solid" meshes in mind, but rather "almost solid" meshes, that may have
> slight flaws that don't really impact how well they are suited to CSG.
> So what the inside_vector is designed to work around is not gaping holes, but
> tiny "fissures" due to numeric precision issues.

Yes, this is as I said in the bug reports group.

> The essence is that every surface to show up in the final CSG object must
> already be there in the component objects.

Ah, I see now. This happens in the case of the heightfield as well. My only
request is that this behavior be toggled on and off. With other shapes (such as
the heightfield) it is easy to create the closed volume defined as being
"inside" the object via an intersection with a box or other primitive. But with
a mesh this is non-trivial.

> Second, POV's plane is *defined* to actually not be a plane, but "everything
> 'below' the plane", for CSG purposes.

....and the heightfield, and the disc, and, incidentally, the mesh.

-Mike

Post a reply to this message