|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
In article <ioge8ukobdf0e5u0rh8ec9dgpkeo18m0r7@4ax.com>,
W?odzimierz ABX Skiba <abx### [at] babilon org> wrote:
> Inside/outside - remember it's pattern/function so I don't use trace at all
Then it won't work for "any finite object". For example, it won't work
for triangles or bezier patches. Or rather, it would work, but by the
definition of the effect, the result will always be 0, because those
shapes have no volume.
And why doesn't it work for infinite shapes? Seems like it'd just not be
as well optimized, it would think it is always inside the bounding box.
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] mac com>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tag povray org
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Thu, 07 Mar 2002 12:28:54 -0500, Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] mac com>
wrote:
> > Inside/outside - remember it's pattern/function so I don't use trace at all
>
> Then it won't work for "any finite object". For example, it won't work
> for triangles or bezier patches. Or rather, it would work, but by the
> definition of the effect, the result will always be 0, because those
> shapes have no volume.
You catch me for language details and I'm poor in such discussion. I'm working
on specialized usage for beveling and my macro works on 2D cross section on xy
plane. It use bounding to precise area of working.
> And why doesn't it work for infinite shapes?
Bocouse I don't see any reason to bevel infinite shapes :-)
> Seems like it'd just not be
> as well optimized, it would think it is always inside the bounding box.
Bounding box is not an element of optimization. It is specification for image
function area.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |