"hughes, b." <omn### [at] charternet> wrote in message
news:3d9e5ee0$1@news.povray.org...
> Looks like what happened is the scale .375 after each of the translates of
> the looks_like shifted the chandelier object from where it ought to be.
> Otherwise maybe this would have been okay, just the long way around of
doing
> it. Hugo is right, it can be better to define it all at the origin and
move
> from there.
>
> "Hugo" <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message
> news:3d9df527$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> >  If so, the reason is that you define your lightsources at origin and
> > translate the looks_like objects.
> >
> > It should be the other way around.
> >
> > So you define your lightsources where they're supposed to be, and keep
> your
> > looks_like objects at origin.. They will translate along with the
> > light_source.
>
> This could sound confusing to some people but I know what is meant. Seems
> Daniel tried setting the lights up by thinking ahead. If you use the
origin
> <0,0,0> for the light, as Hugo said, you can at least create the
looks_like
> beforehand based around that and then do scale, rotate, translate or any
> workable combination of those. Not as easy to configure a looks_like
object
> for a placement that could end up being anywhere.
> --
> Farewell,
> Bob
>
>

Thanks-- it's much better now.

Post a reply to this message