On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:40:16 +0100, "Marc-Hendrik Bremer"
<Mar### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:

>It seems to be an accuracy-problem for me. Sometimes you have to go really
>low with this value (something like 0.000001). Your contained_by{}-box is
>way to big and you get better results if it's fits better. And it will be
>faster. (Throw that unnecessary '+0' out of the function, it slows down the
>iso, too - well a little bit :-))

Hmm, I had the +0 in there because I stole that formula from a web
page, but I'll happily discard it if it'll speed things up :). Turns
out it was the contained_by box; thanks for pointing that out. I had
changed it earlier to increase it since I had thought maybe it was
getting cut off but I didn't try decreasing the size, which is what
did the trick.

I still don't really know what I'm doing with these things, so I'm
rarely sure why things work the way they do. I think I need to learn
more math.

Post a reply to this message