|
 |
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>
> But wouldn't using trace() require essentially an infinite number of trace
> points, so that trace doesn't 'miss' the intersection?
Oops, it occurred to me that I was thinking about purely 'mathematical' lines
(and maybe incorrectly at that.) If the two lines (or even one) are replaced
with actual cylinders--just temporarily, as test objects--then a *single* trace
would work very well, using your scheme.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
