Hi the code in axman was designed to be output compatible with the
fortran code. as a 'C' programmer I found it an odd switch ( and
still do).
People typically count from one (1,2,3,4) it's only C programmers (
and their children) that count from 0. Fortran and Pascal (object
pascal being the language of Axman) use 1 based indexs for arrays and
so number systems. Everything also had to be compatible with the
output of the social logic of space ( with the D value).
Zero depth makes sense to me but non programmers got there first.
so R2 = r3, r3=r4 and r2=r1, which can be said to eliminate a problem ( no r1).
Using R2 (ie old R3 )You may noticed more glitches in radius 2 due to
poor micro-structure.
sheep
>Dear Lucas,
>
>Yes, this is the same in Depthmap: R2 is the equivalent of R3 in axman.
>
>I have always said that this makes sense: two steps away is to my
>mind R2, not R3.
>
>As for handling low numbers of lines within (Depthmap's) radius two,
>undefined values (nulls) are given in the (small number of) cases
>where there are too few lines to calculate RRA.
>
>Alasdair
>
|