On 30-10-2018 10:56, clipka wrote:
> Am 30.10.2018 um 04:58 schrieb Robert Munyer:
>> The documentation explains the rendering problem that happens when one
>> of the surfaces of the minuend in a difference operation is coincident
>> with one of the surfaces of the subtrahend.
>>
>> I've been encountering a similar-looking rendering problem even when
>> there is no such coincidence.  In the scene attached below, I expected
>> the center of the image to be a green solid surface, not a speckled
>> "window" into the object's interior.
>>
>> Question 1:  Is this a bug?
> 
> No; it's a known issue that is fundamental to the way POV-Ray does 
> constructive solid geometry.
> 
>> Question 2:  If this is not a bug but a problem in the scene file...
>> Suppose that Bar and Baz were written by different authors; which one of
>> them is responsible?  Was the author of Bar supposed to avoid coincident
>> surfaces, even though he was just unioning some untextured solid objects?
>> Or conversely, was the author of Baz supposed to perform an audit of the
>> structural details of the objects that he was differencing, just in case
>> one of them might have its own subcomponents that have coincidences?
> 
> That's really a legal question, and therefore outside the scope of these 
> newsgroups; you better consult a lawyer about this. All I as a layman 
> can say is that as far as I am aware, there is nothing intentionally 
> inherent in POV-Ray or its terms of use that would imply one or the other.

LOL!
I had not even considered the /legal/ aspect of the question. I would 
consider Bar to be malignant and purposely inducing Baz into problems, 
while Baz has been too stupid or just too lazy to control the received code.

I want to see both in court your honour!

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message