Hi Bob!

> I'm not so sure it can really be classified as a true "bug" since it's
probably
> more of a mathematics problem in the spline.  They tend to wrap back on
> themselves if the points which are set up for the profile aren't in good
> relation to one another.  sturm helps but can't seem to go beyond a
certain
> limit to clear it up.  Numerical precision and all that, you know.
Now I get what Grimdude answered. And I thought it was a joke. Because sturm
is a german word for storm. And If there was a dark line at the horizon, it
could be a storm. but it's that keyword sturm, he ment. I see and will try
sturm now.

> Anyhow, what I'm actually getting at is that the spline calculations are
either
> faulty or just can't reach correct accuracy.  But if you place the points
well
> enough there wouldn't be artifacts.  What it needs is a over-ride to
prevent
> bad points and thus bad splines.  I guess in that respect it would be a
bug
> once the answer to that were found.
> Didn't make perfect sense, did I ?
Reading twice helped (but that are maybe language problems to be solved...)

Now I'm disappointed - I thought I prevented the spline from bad points,
therefore i did a cubicspline-prism first.
And having tried to find out what was wrong, I realized the error on the
lathe was exactly the height of the camera (those orthogonal rays to the
lathe, Thomas Willhelm mentioned in his answer to kens so called "media bug"
in march '99).
You answer is another direction, and i thought i had no "bad points" in the
lathe spline. Have to look at it.

Anyway, many thanks to you(r help)!

cukk

Post a reply to this message