|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote in
news:3f86c37d$1@news.povray.org:
> For efficiency, it's easier to just break a square into two triangles.
> ^_^ Also in a square you can't change the angles, or it ceases to be
> a square. They will always be 45 and 90 degrees.
Efficiency? In this case the square is centered at the origin, that's
where it's rotated from, so that's where the angle is, so we are dealing
with the eigtht, but we only care about _one_ triangle. If you want to
just use two triangles to solve this case, you're going to have to do
more math, which would be innefficient.
Of course a square's triangle angle can't change, that is exactly what we
are taking advantage of in this case. I said: the opposite and adjacent
sides are the same, so the angle is obviously fixed. In this case, if
the angle changes, we are determining by how much we need to adjust the
sides to keep the angle constant.
It sounds like you took my message completely out of context. I was
reffering to the problem at hand, the original question.
Post a reply to this message
|
|