I would imagine that none of this is necessary, really. Preferably, this should
be an infinitely looping pattern, with the tip of the cones tapering to a point,
and the cones themselves extending into infinity. The vertex angle might make
things more convenient, but everythig can be adjusted by scaling.
I re-iterate, I would use this function for a pattern, not some finite object.

Margus

Peter Popov wrote:
> 
> I wrote,
> >> Concetric in what manner? Sharing a common vertex and concentric in
> >> terms of angle, or sharing a common angle and concentric in terms of
> >> vertex and base?
> 
> And on Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:59:31 +0200, you wrote:
> 
> >The latter.
> >
> >Margus
> 
> So, what parameters will you need? Vertex1, Vertex2 (vectors), Radius1
> and Radius2 (floats), right? Maybe just Radius1 and Radius2, with
> vertices 1 and 2 being <0,0,0> and <0,1,0> resp. I will think about
> that.
> 
> Peter Popov
> ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message