"Chris Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:chrishuff-F51432.17593119122000@news.povray.org...
> In article <3a3c8ce5$2@news.povray.org>, "Scott Hill"
> <sco### [at] innocentcom> wrote:
>
> >     I get one red sphere and one white sphere, not two red ones. So,
> > couldn't you, therefore, implement it so that you could do something
like:
> >
> > union {
> >  sphere { -x, 1 pigment { color rgb 1 } glow }
> >  sphere { x, 1 }
> >  pigment { color red 1 }
> > }
> >
> > to give one, glowing, white sphere and one, not glowing, red sphere ?
>
> I don't understand what you mean...this is exactly how it would work.
>

    Hmm, now I'm confused (plus I've not looked at glows yet so don't know
how they work currently, but that's mostly irrelevant) - I was replying to
the post in which you said :

<Quote>BTW, I am re-thinking my idea of attaching glows to objects...maybe
glows should be an object attribute instead, specifying a glow for an
object would make that object glow. However, this would make it
impossible to link multiple glows together without a separate keyword,
because specifying a glow in a union would make the objects in the union
glow...maybe something like a "glow_group" object would help
instead.<\Quote>

    How is what I described not an object attribute, and if that is how it
works currently, where's the problem ? (Don't fix what ain't broke.)

--
Scott Hill.
Software Engineer.
E-Mail        : sco### [at] innocentcom
PGP Key       : http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371
Pandora's Box : http://www.pandora-software.com

*Everything in this message/post is purely IMHO and no-one-else's*

Post a reply to this message