|
 |
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> I should have known of course, and instead of swearing by Eagle the
> Bald, sacrificing nameless things to the Clipka idol and invoking the
> good spirit of Saint William of the Pokorny (in that order) for a couple
> of days, I should have opened the Grimoire and read:
..oO(Oh boy, he's swearing again...)
> "Note: This is not perfect, in some cases (such as CSG intersections and
> differences or isosurfaces) the bounding box does not represent the
> actual dimensions of the object."
>
> The hell it doesn't!
Well, yes, we all knew that - which is what jr's bounding macro - using trace ()
- is all about, and my attempt at doing the same using SVD were all about.
I had a bit of a hard time visualizing some of what the docs were saying a while
back, and clipka gave a little more explanation about about certain pathological
cases. (presumably he was not referring to you at the time)
If your human/mathematical knowledge lets you know approximately the range of a
function in an isosurface, but you don't know _exactly_the bounds of the
surface, you can iterate through the function with a nested x, y, z #for loop
and use min and max to update the value of an indicator with each evaluation.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
