POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.documentation.inbuilt : Some mistake in reference 3.4.4.1.2 spotlight section : Re: Some mistake in reference 3.4.4.1.2 spotlight section Server Time
18 Jan 2022 19:24:32 EST (-0500)
  Re: Some mistake in reference 3.4.4.1.2 spotlight section  
From: And
Date: 20 Nov 2013 07:10:01
Message: <web.528ca572d765f2a0f9d479350@news.povray.org>
James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> yes I think this is just a typo ... i'll change it
Ha.

> true enough angles greater than 90 degrees /are/ excepted ... i'm
> wondering if /have/ in the above sentence ought to be /should/
Really? If this is the case, "should" is better than "have" in my opinion.


> i played around with this (quickly) and it doesn't seem to make a
> difference if it's 0 or 90
>
> anyone else have a moment to add a bit of clarity before i decide whats
> needs to be changed?
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> For a tightness of 0 it makes quite the difference, so there's reason to
> believe that the same goes for other small values.
yes, the situation for a tightness of 0 it is not fit, so I raise this question.


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2021 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.