Steve Baker (sbaker++at++link.com)
Thu, 18 Sep 1997 15:03:34 -0500 (CDT)
> I have writen a performer application that heavily relies on the
> pfBox::contains(pfBox*) member function. Sometimes the results where
> not as expected and it turned out that there is a possible bug
> in the pfBox routine. The following code gives a wrong result.
I don't know about your specific problem - but there are certainly
some problems with pfBox member functions in Perf2.0/2.1 - I
saw some problems with inconsistant representations for empty
boxes and problems with pfXformBox.
In the end, I wrote my own functions - it's possible that
the pfBox routines may have been fixed in Perf2.2(beta).
Since a pfBox is just a pfVec3 for the minimum and maximum coordinate
values, it's pretty easy to rewrite pfBox::contains(pfBox*) to do
what you want.
Steve Baker 817-619-8776 (Vox/Vox-Mail)
Hughes Training Inc. 817-619-4028 (Fax)
2200 Arlington Downs Road SBaker++at++link.com (eMail)
Arlington, Texas. TX 76005-6171 SJBaker1++at++airmail.net (Personal eMail)
http://www.hti.com http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1 (personal)
** Beware of Geeks bearing GIF's. **
=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://www.sgi.com/Technology/Performer/
Submissions: info-performer++at++sgi.com
Admin. requests: info-performer-request++at++sgi.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:55:57 PDT