I think I had a sentence saying that if there is
no need for transparency, merge{} might be
left out...

So unless you actually use discs/triangles/planes
which intersect with another area, the coincident
surface should be no problem, as these should be
on the inside of a non-transparent object. And media
also only shows up in transparent objects.

I guess you've just overread that, no offense taken.
It seems we both know the pro's and con's of merge
vs union... :-)

Regards,
Tim

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

> Note that, although faster with opaque objects, this might (and probably
> will) not only to be actually slower when using transparent objects (due
to
> the need for more intersection tests and, with reflection, deeper
> recursion), but also produce some artifacts such as the infamous
coincident
> surfaces problem. Using merge may help somewhat, but I don't think it gets
> rid of all the artifacts. Also, using such a composite object as a media
> container may be artifact-prone.

Post a reply to this message