'perfectly aligned' by a human still isn't perfect.  iirc, we can see
down to about 4/1000 of an inch which is pretty small, but that doesn't
mean we can make our hands move things by such slight amounts.  you
would still need a robot to position the pieces 'exactly'.  so even the
obsessive compulsive couldn't position them exactly.  there would simply
be less jitter, in which case a positioning macro could have several
jitter settings: near perfect, regular, or sloppy.

"Bob H." wrote:
> 
> "Harold Baize" <bai### [at] itsaucsfedu> wrote in message
> news:3af732a8@news.povray.org...
> > I guess you don't play chess with obsessive compulsives very often ;-)
> 
> Ha! I wish I had said that.
> I'm just such a person sometimes.  A chess set in particular must be exactly
> aligned at the start.  I can lose to a 10 year old so unfortunately that
> doesn't mean I can play well.
> 
> > "Ryan Constantine" <rco### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
> > news:3AF72E9A.2209030E@yahoo.com...
> > > to give your game the human touch, randomly position each piece within
> > > its square and give it a random twist on its vertical axis.  in other
> > > words, no human could place all of the pieces in the exact center of
> > > each square and facing exactly forward.  nice job btw. :)
> 
> I like both kinds of setup; erratic or immaculate, either way.  Yet another
> reason to do 3D rendering.
> About the focal blurring maybe being overdone, I think of that in the same
> way.  Or it has something to do with my eyesight and not always wearing my
> glasses.
> 
> Bob H.

Post a reply to this message