Am 25.07.2013 02:46, schrieb Shay:

>> Maybe I'm missing something, but I come up with just 215 primitives + 69
>> containers (while for some reason I don't understand POV-Ray reports 82
>> finite objects and no infinite ones).
>
> NICE!!!!! And I'll bet it just so happens you're just the person to ask
> about that POV-team Amazon wishlist.

You'd actually have to ask Chris Cason whether that Wishlist still 
exists; I /think/ the books and hardware that were on that list have all 
been donated by now.

>> Not using bounding though, which
>> makes it pretty slow to render, and I have no idea why I would want to
>> use clipping.
>
> Bounding objects will account for a lot of the difference. You mentioned
> "containers"--not sure what you meant there if you didn't mean bounding.

containers = union, difference, intersection (and, in theory, merge; I 
didn't use that one though).

> Plus--and I'm not certain--it looks like your small-hole extrusions are
> capped with tori. Mine are slightly curved then rounded with tiny tori.
> If I'm right, there should be a difference of 24*8 objects there.

So what you are saying is that you also beveled the transition between 
the "petals" and the tori forming the end of the small-hole extrusions; 
is that the essence of it?

 From how I understand your description I suppose it should be possible 
with just 9*8 additional primitives and 3 additional containers.

> I used clipping on the tori, but that may not have been wise. You know a
> lot more about the internal workings of POV than I do.

Sounds like you used clipping as a substitute for intersection, is that 
what you're saying?

>> This is only proof of concept for the CSG though, with some of the
>> object placement parameters just being tweaked until they fit, rather
>> than having POV-Ray compute them automatically.
>
> BOO! Close enough, though.

Okay, okay - I'll try to come up with formulae for all those parameters...

Post a reply to this message