I agree with you here Ken. 
in the beginning, I had no idea of what the numbers should be, and did the
reverse math thing...
But now that i know the relation of the two, it is far better this way...

got with the linear correlation. (I think thats the word)

Ken wrote:
> 
> Nathan Kopp wrote:
> >
> > That is a possibility, but if I give you a density of .02, you could guess
> > that a good gather radius would be around 0.1, but if I give you a density
> > of 2500, what would your initial guess for gather radius be?  I guess you
> > could use 1/sqrt(2500)*5 ... and maybe that would be OK... would it be too
> > confusing, or more clear that what I have now?
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> > -Nathan
> 
>   For the math illiterate or math lazy which ever the case may be, the lowest
> amount of math intensive formulas needed to operate a function, increases the
> amount of potential people that stand a chance of successfully using it.
> 
>   I vote for a symbolic language and provide the formulas for the whiz kids
> who are into the heavier math driven end of the operation. To go with the
> last only would run the risk of occluding some users who might otherwise
> use it with ease were it not for a lack of a formal math education.
> 
> --
> Ken Tyler
> 
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

-- 
//Spider
        [ spi### [at] bahnhofse ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
What I can do and what I could do, I just don't know anymore
                "Marian"
        By: "Sisters Of Mercy"

Post a reply to this message