Still looks good, and time is very reasonable. I messed around with your
last proximity macros, but I just don't have any scenes yet that are ready
for that kind of detail.

 -Shay


news:uc2f8u8rhhuoajslft80k4j9tcboavfv18@4ax.com...

Post a reply to this message

In article <ioge8ukobdf0e5u0rh8ec9dgpkeo18m0r7@4ax.com>,
 W?odzimierz ABX Skiba <abx### [at] babilonorg> 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] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 07 Mar 2002 12:28:54 -0500, Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
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