Peter Popov <pet### [at] usanet> wrote in message
news:fifcfs8diqum0iapiudcvp7j762sm9mup5@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:28:15 +0200, "Dejan D. M. Milosavljevic"
> <dmi### [at] xoommailcom> wrote:
>
> >Entire source and test scenes at  -- Plane patch --  page  via
> >http://members.xoom.com/dmilos/prg/pov/mypovpage.htm
>
> <snip>
>
> >Any comment?!
>
> Yes. I am not a programmer, but I must tell you I really respect your
> work with these patches. Correct me if I'm wrong in thinking that the
> real art of it seems to be in finding the right spot to correct and
> then leaving everyone else slapping their foreheads asking themselves
> how they haven't thought of that first :)
>

I have few theory.
1.One of  programming's  rule said :   if ( work_properly() )
 do_not_touch(); }.
2. Many people see that. Doubtlessly. But they think there is no need to do
it.


> This plane patch is a really nifty one (now that Ron has explained
> what you've done). Can a similar approach be taken for triangles? IIRC
> the intersection point of the test ray and the plane of the triangle
> is tested for insidedness using a lemma of one of Jordan's theorems.
> This requires several steps of manipulating 3D vectors. Maybe if one
> of the coordinates is stripped down (the triangle and intersection
> point are projected on a coordinate plane), these calculations would
> only require 2D vectors. Of course the right projecting plane should
> be chosen.
>
> What do you think? Is it worth the trouble?
>

Triangle is one of the most investigated primitive.
For ray tracer version with 2D vector is one of  the best in theory.
In a real life we have specialized processors and question: "How to use
their ability".

>
> Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
> Personal e-mail : pet### [at] usanet
> TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message