hi,

"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> "jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > I've tested the code with a handful of different objects, and so far, so good.
> > perhaps someone else will find use(s) for it too.  it is a work in progress
> > though, and it would be nice if one or two wanted to be "guinea pigs", beta
> > test, and help find bugs/problems, suggest improvements.
>
> Sounds nice.

ah.  'useful' is the adjective I was [fw]ishing for.  ;-)

> ...
> First, maybe add the option of making two wireframe AA-BB's - the original, and
> the optimized so that the result can be seen in a render.

future stuff, perhaps.  :-)  the idea is simply to get guide figures to tighten
the bounds if wanted/necessary.

> Second - this is dealing with axis-aligned bounding boxes, which immediately
> brings up a million questions about what if I have a long, narrow box that's at
> 45 degrees to 2 axes .... is there some way to optimize the orientation of the
> object itself.

no.  the object is where it is.  a copy of the object is aligned to origin to
make the calculations .. bearable.  (up to) the diff figures can be then be
applied to the original.

"optimise the orientation" in which way?  not sure I understand.

> Especially if you try to apply this to an infinitely long cylinder, or plane,
> or....

yeah.  as I wrote, the macro uses 'inside()' to do the probing, with all that
implies.  in the end though one has to trust the user to know not to drive
screws with a hammer.

> ...
> ;)  Well, - what if we try to calculate a bounding _sphere_ ...

too advanced for me.  (as are your references in the other two follow-ups I
read)

> ...


regards ,jr.

Post a reply to this message