"ryan constantine" <rco### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:39835221.CE9E0252@yahoo.com...
| so after all of this have you tested isosurface interaction with other
| shapes yet?  how about replacing your plane with a huge cube?  i'd be
| interested in your results; especially if you ever get the jaggies to go
| away.  keep us posted.

I'm convinced now it's all in the 'accuracy' and nothing else.  When trying
to render as fast as possible for both a decent render and render time it's
not good to use accuracy 0.00001 or less, that's why I was getting horrible
effects at 0.01 and still not good at 0.001.  I think I can get by okay with
0.0001 though, but it is much slower than would otherwise be.  Another
problem is the AA depth, can't use +r2 for instance regardless of the +a
setting.  In other words, I often cheat on the settings for animations
compared with stills because the movement typically hides the imperfections.
Oh, I tried as you suggested, a box is no different that I can tell.
Basically just human error on my part, the computer can do a great
isosurface if you let it.
I still haven't figured the mysterious transparent rotating object when
motion blur is applied which I was encountering long ago.  I happened across
it again a couple months ago and then it vanished again, figuratively
speaking, before I was able to keep the pov script as it had been at the
moment.
I don't want to cry wolf all the time so I hope my observations aren't taken
as such.

Bob

Post a reply to this message