"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> need to let this info .. stew :-) for a while.  looks like BE's idea of an ini
> driven animation to explore the possible orientations and post-process results
> is a way to go.

The ini was just to showcase what you've got and point out that the initial
object orientation might not yield the tightest bounding box possible.

As a tool, I'd probably do some sort of iteration with loops, first fixing one
axis, then another, then another, and then checking to see if there's any
improvement on a second go-'round.  If there is, repeat, if not, all done.

> > - the test is also useful with hyperboloid, superellipsoid, and
> > isosurface objects. Quartic and parametric objects do no comply,
> > probably they are not 'solid'? I did not test this thoroughly.
>
> great news.  I'd initially assumed the macro would be a .. single trick pony,
> only good for CSG.

Great job Thomas - those results are surprising, given the absolute mathematical
nature of those shapes.

I would have imagined that with something like a parametric, you'd be able to
cycle through u and v real quick, and get a min and max value for each axis to
use for the AABB dimensions.   I'm also still completely mystified as to why the
parametric is such a slow-to-render object, and why the triangle approximation
isn't a source-coded native primitive.

Post a reply to this message