|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
'perfectly aligned' by a human still isn't perfect. iirc, we can see
down to about 4/1000 of an inch which is pretty small, but that doesn't
mean we can make our hands move things by such slight amounts. you
would still need a robot to position the pieces 'exactly'. so even the
obsessive compulsive couldn't position them exactly. there would simply
be less jitter, in which case a positioning macro could have several
jitter settings: near perfect, regular, or sloppy.
"Bob H." wrote:
>
> "Harold Baize" <bai### [at] itsa ucsf edu> wrote in message
> news:3af732a8@news.povray.org...
> > I guess you don't play chess with obsessive compulsives very often ;-)
>
> Ha! I wish I had said that.
> I'm just such a person sometimes. A chess set in particular must be exactly
> aligned at the start. I can lose to a 10 year old so unfortunately that
> doesn't mean I can play well.
>
> > "Ryan Constantine" <rco### [at] yahoo com> wrote in message
> > news:3AF72E9A.2209030E@yahoo.com...
> > > to give your game the human touch, randomly position each piece within
> > > its square and give it a random twist on its vertical axis. in other
> > > words, no human could place all of the pieces in the exact center of
> > > each square and facing exactly forward. nice job btw. :)
>
> I like both kinds of setup; erratic or immaculate, either way. Yet another
> reason to do 3D rendering.
> About the focal blurring maybe being overdone, I think of that in the same
> way. Or it has something to do with my eyesight and not always wearing my
> glasses.
>
> Bob H.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |