On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 22:29:47 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> It is a stupid question:  You are suggesting exactly the same I answered won't
> work.  Try to read the explanation again...
> 

I did read it again.. According to your description the raytracer 'automatically
sorts' the
surfaces on a 'ray by ray' basis... Ok. So how does telling the renderer that in case
of objects
A, B and C you should always assume that B has precidence when it is some really small
distance from A and C? If the difference in spacing is so small that it creates
coincident
surface problems, it is unlikely that the resulting behavior would be worse than it is
now, if the
raytracer was forced to assume that they do in fact occupy the same space or that one
of
them should 'always' be interracted with first. I don't get why forcing such a thing
is 'impossible'.
Of course it may be impossible using the current implimentation, but that doesn't mean
it is
completely impossible to do.

Of course as you said, it is easy to fix without doing such a thing, if a tad
inconvenient in some
cases. ;)

I do admit though that I am not an expert, so could be flat out wrong, but so can
experts sometimes.

Post a reply to this message