> Well, zeroing the threshold certainly forces the issue.  Quite
> inefficiently, though.

Agreed...

> All discontinuous regular patterns show sampling artifacts if
> rendered far enough in the distance.  This includes checkered
> planes, and since everyone is required to make the hajj to the
> checkered plane, you might search past articles to see what
> others have done.

Thanks.  I'll see what I can find.  However these artifacts
weren't really bothering me as much as gaps in the outline.
It was just a nice side-effect of the fix I used to fill in those
gaps.

> The best "solution" i know of is to avoid rendering it, e.g.,
> obscure it with ground fog, place a wall in the near
> background, or aim the camera downward a bit more.
> It's akin to what Bible illustrators do with Adam and
> Eve. ;-)  Focal blur will also do the trick, but that can
> take forever, which is what we're trying to avoid.

For this particular image I had a reason for wanting it to look
like there was nothing around for a very long ways.  See the
caption I posted with the image.  I did however look down
enough that the horizon isn't in the picture.

> Not that i know of, but you can try making the lines thicker
> to decrease the chance of the AA missing it.

Yes, but it doesn't take much before the lines look too big
in places.

> Speaking of CSG, do you have a lot of intersections and
> differences?
> Manually bounding these sometimes speeds things up.

Here I suspect you've hit the nail on the head.  I have a ton
of intersections, differences, intersections of differences,
differences of intersections and so on.  And I'm currently
not using any manual bounding.  Is there a good guide out
there for the best way to do this the most efficient way
possible?  Do you manual bound just each difference and
intersection?  What about 10 differences that are merged?
I've even seen people talk about breaking unions and merges
up into pairs so that you never put together more then 2
shapes at a time.  In the future as I learn more I'd like to go
back and clean up my code for speed as I'm sure I'll have to
before I can play with animations much but I'm not sure
what will give me the best bang for the buck and what will
be redundant or wasted effort.

> The FAQ doesn't say that you have it; it says that it's
> available. It's a freeware program that you can download
> from the Internet.  See
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part2/section-15.html
> for a reasonably trustworthy download site.  N.B.:  Avoid
> using long filenames with this program.

Just went back and checked.  Yes.  You are 100% correct.
"Available" was the word that I over looked.  Sorry.

> Alternatively, you can check the program that you used to
> convert your first image to JPEG, to see if it has
> supersampling control.

I'll check.

Thanks again,
Carl

Post a reply to this message