Jonathan,
<br>
<br>As to your 3D pixel question, we'll hopefully get to that... but just a moment ago, in the Fractint 20.02.5 program file, I saw this icon named 'MAKEFCFG.EXE'. "Hmm... what's that do?" I wondered, even as I reflexively gave it a click... Suddenly a small dos screen opened, quickly closed and a file named "fractcfg.old" appeared in the folder.
<br>No big thing, but as I then opened the program, I discovered that my choice of video modes is now severely constrained: F2 to F10 and SF1 to SF3 are my only remaining options. I deleted the .old file, but the former functionality has not returned. Any suggestions?
<br>
<br>
<br>As to the original question, ideally a 3D pixel would allow us to write/render formulas such as
<br>
<br>M3D {
<br>Zrng = (-2,2)
<br>a = Xpt(3Dpix), b = Ypt(3Dpix), c = Zpt(3Dpix)
<br>x1 = y1 = z1 = 0:
<br>  x2 = x1^2 - y1^2 - z1^2 + a
<br>  y2 = 2*x1*y1 + b
<br>  z2 = 2*x1*z1 + c
<br>  x1 = x2, y1 = y2, z1 = z2
<br>j = x1^2 + y1^2 + z1^2
<br>j < 8 }
<br>
<br>for objects such as 'http://ixitol.com/3DMset.GIF', which required the 40-odd lines of code in Gerald K. Dobiasovsky's 'Rot3d_T-set' formula.
<br>
<br>Gerald's formula is innovative and ingenious, but ad hoc. A built-in 3D pixel would surely save rendering time and ultimately provide many more options for resolution, colors and so forth.
<br>
<br>Of course, there are a lot of ramifications to this idea; but even the most basic implementation would be a good start, and it would be fun to see where it eventually leads... 
<br>
<br>Thanks for your consideration of this idea.
<br>
<br>Russell 
<br>
<br>---------[ Received Mail Content ]----------
<br>>Subject : Re: [Fractint] 3D pixel
<br>>Date : Sat, 14 Oct 2006 06:45:55 -0500
<br>>From : Jonathan Osuch <osuchj@avalon.net>
<br>>To : Fractint and General Fractals Discussion <fractint@mailman.xmission.com>
<br>>
<br>>Russell,
<br>>
<br>>> Gentlemen: is it possible that Fractint could be enabled of a 3d
<br>>> pixel, such that the initialization line would accept definitions
<br>>> like, say, a = pt1(3Dpix), b = pt2(3Dpix), c = pt3(3Dpix)? The
<br>>> facility for rotations about three axes already exists, right? In any
<br>>> case, I believe that this new kind of capacity could be put to good
<br>>> use. 
<br>>
<br>>What would this feature do?
<br>>
<br>>Jonathan
<br>>
<br>>
<br>>
<br>>_______________________________________________
<br>>Fractint mailing list
<br>>Fractint@mailman.xmission.com
<br>>http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractint
<br>>
<br>>
<br>