hi,

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Op 03/11/2019 om 16:40 schreef jr:
> > "Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> >>>>> ... I wrote a macro which "scans" an object's BB ...
> >>>> find attached an updated version of 'Bounder'.
> > ...
> A few thoughts derived from this.
>
> - rotating the object changes the 'tightness' of the standard BB. I did
> that with a simple cylinder: when properly aligned along one of the
> axis, the BB test is always optimal; rotate the cylinder (e.g.
> <45,45,45>) and do the test, and the standard BB becomes too wide.

need to let this info .. stew :-) for a while.  looks like BE's idea of an ini
driven animation to explore the possible orientations and post-process results
is a way to go.

> - the test is also useful with hyperboloid, superellipsoid, and
> isosurface objects. Quartic and parametric objects do no comply,
> probably they are not 'solid'? I did not test this thoroughly.

great news.  I'd initially assumed the macro would be a .. single trick pony,
only good for CSG.

> - I include the test scene file for you to play with.

thank you v much for this.  not only do I get those natty presentation settings
:-), but looking at the code I surmise you replaced the 'local's of the
difference vectors with 'declare's?  that's given me another idea for an
improvement: create two variables, 'Bounder_{min,max}_diff' and export
('declare') them for in-scene use.  thoughts?


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message