Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> 
> Yes, because not specifying max_gradient always used to have some hard to
> predict consequences (also users never noticed) going back as far as the
> original isosurface code.

This seems to be exactly the case when using 'evaluate' can be faster than
a specified max_gradient.  See also R. Suzuki's recent post concerning
this:

news://news.povray.org/3bd7f6e8%241%40news.povray.org  

I hope this possibility is not removed with the new changes.

> It would basically behave different depending on
> max_gradient being specified or not, even if the specified max_gradient was
> the same as the default.  You probably never noticed, but if max_gradient is
> set (this goes for the original code as well), the values you specify after
> eval(uate) did not change anything.
> 
> This has been corrected and it now works the same all the time except for
> the above problem in beta 7.  However, I am still trying to determine other
> side effects of the final change (not in beta 7).
> 

So there is no difference between specifying max_gradient 1.1 or not now,
even if you use 'evaluate'?

Then one thing wonders me: what's the difference between the first
parameter of 'evaluate' and the max_gradient value if both are specified?

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message