|
|
hi,
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Op 27/06/2020 om 15:35 schreef jr:
> > Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> >> Op 26/06/2020 om 09:10 schreef jr:
> >>> ...
> >> I attach a little test scene together with version 3 of Bounder where I
> >> only changed two #local statements to #declare.
> >
> > one thing that grabbed my attention is the scaling of 'Crossing', after it has
> > been created. so I moved the 'scale 1.01' from line 73 into the declaration of
> > 'Crossing', as line 66. the figures output, and the images, differ slightly,
> > and
> > I am at a disadvantage in that I do not know what the "correct" result should
> > look like. :-)
>
> I solved it! And, like always, it was a trivial problem :-)
> I forgot to increase the resolution parameter in Bounder. For testing, I
> had kept it low (10) but when increasing the value to, e.g. 50 or
> higher, Bounder gives the correct answers for optimized min and max extents.
>
> So, after all, your macro works also correctly
exonerated.. \o/ :-)
(I got so hung up on the 'scale 1.01', and not knowing whether the macro would
"know" of that change, that I missed the low resolution, and the implications
for a small object, completely)
> for intersections (and probably differences too), which is good to know of
> course. I shall keep it close at hand from now on.
as long as "the thing" has an "inside", it should work.
thanks, and regards, jr.
(link to the unmodified version)
<http://news.povray.org/povray.text.scene-files/message/%3Cweb.5dc0bff634d8ef06feeb22ff0%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3Cweb.5
dc0bff634d8ef06feeb22ff0%40news.povray.org%3E>
Post a reply to this message
|
|