Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>   You have to consider that after a certain accuracy has been achieved
> (by making the distance between the two sample points close enough),
> increasing the accuracy even further will have such a small effect that
> it will disappear in all the other calculations being made afterwards
> (eg. to rotate an object or whatever)...
>
>   Also if you think about it in practice, if you use the direction to eg.
> reorient an object, after a certain accuracy any further accuracy would
> transform the object so little that it will be like a millionth of a pixel
> in the final image.
>

Yeah, I have to agree--'bleeding edge' accuracy really isn't necessary, from a
practical standpoint.

Yet, from the user's standpoint, the docs still leave out a few details that
would be useful (to avoid 'mysterious behavior'): What exactly *is* meant by a
'low' value for Foresight; and what's the lowest value that we shouldn't go
below. In light of all that's been said, I think the only thing that *is*
needed is a caveat in the docs--perhaps in one of those yellow boxes--something
like this:
"Since it's mathematically difficult to determine EXACT alignment using
Foresight, a recommended lowest value is *-----*."

Not the LOWEST bleeding-edge value, but one that allows some headroom, to avoid
*any* object-flipping. Just an empirically-derived value. That would be enough
to avoid problems, IMO.

KW

Post a reply to this message