|
 |
Op 26/06/2020 om 12:51 schreef Bald Eagle:
>
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
>> I should have known of course, and instead of swearing by Eagle the
>> Bald, sacrificing nameless things to the Clipka idol and invoking the
>> good spirit of Saint William of the Pokorny (in that order) for a couple
>> of days, I should have opened the Grimoire and read:
>
> ..oO(Oh boy, he's swearing again...)
Couldn't be helped ;-)
>
>> "Note: This is not perfect, in some cases (such as CSG intersections and
>> differences or isosurfaces) the bounding box does not represent the
>> actual dimensions of the object."
>>
>> The hell it doesn't!
>
> Well, yes, we all knew that - which is what jr's bounding macro - using trace ()
> - is all about, and my attempt at doing the same using SVD were all about.
> I had a bit of a hard time visualizing some of what the docs were saying a while
> back, and clipka gave a little more explanation about about certain pathological
> cases. (presumably he was not referring to you at the time)
>
Unfortunately, his bounding macro does not work correctly either in this
case (see my answer to jr).
> If your human/mathematical knowledge lets you know approximately the range of a
> function in an isosurface, but you don't know _exactly_the bounds of the
> surface, you can iterate through the function with a nested x, y, z #for loop
> and use min and max to update the value of an indicator with each evaluation.
>
>
Well, I was not working with isosurfaces in this particular case but
with good old CSG's. However, I shall keep this suggestion in mind (if
my dreadful memory permits; I totally forgot about jr's macro...).
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
