[Bf-committers] Re: Re: Bugtracker lost me again....

[joeedh]

joeedh wrote:

> Robert Wenzlaff wrote:
>
>> The way I read it, it all comes down to is he prefers his default 
>> spheres inscribed instead of curcumscribed.   (He wants his default 
>> sphere to fit inside the default cube, not the other way around.)
>>
>> If you do your example viewed from the top, you will see that the 
>> corners of your plane (maximum extent of the shape) align perfectly 
>> with the radius of your sphere (also a maximum extent, as is evey 
>> point on a sphere).  The same  is true of a default cube.  All 8 
>> corners align with the surface of the sphere.   The sizes are chosen 
>> such that the point (1,1) is on the radii.  Other apps tend to think 
>> more in terms of unit bounding boxes (it's probably the more common 
>> philosophy).
>>
>> As far as changing the internals, no need.  If all he is talking 
>> about is the default shapes, then the data could simply be changed 
>> for the default shape.  Any previous .blends already have their size 
>> and data recorded, and any calls to Add->Sphere in a newer version 
>> would simply have verts added a little closer to the center.  It 
>> would not affect spheres that already exist.  It would only become a 
>> problem in tutes that used the fact that a default cube fits inside a 
>> default sphere (or some other assuption that follows from that fact)...
>>
>
> I personally think that this is a useful and important thing.  You 
> never need any of this in most renderings, true, but for example for a 
> camera matching experiment or something where you have to perfectly 
> replicate real objects in 3D

Idiot typo, slash that "perfectly" word.  I meant ". . .where you have 
to replicate real objects in 3D for the purposes of inserting 3D objects 
into a scene", and of course you don't have to be perfect to the last 
detail to do that.

joeedh