Quote - Uhm.. that code is already inside the code_snippet that I posted - it's basically part of the point_in_triangle() test, which is built-right in to that routine, for speed.  I provided the fastest (and most correct) version of that code in the snippet.  In other words, I removed the associated comments, because the code, as it is in there, is correct.  If you prefer some other point_in_triangle() routine, you'd be replacing that code anyway.

Okay.  I haven't gotten beyond reading the comments in the snippet code yet.  I don't think there's any reason to consider replacement with another point-in-tri process.  I tested three approaches in 2008, one of which was just a slight variant on the one you use, and your code was the fastest.  It's good stuff!  :woot:

Quote - Erm, answered another way.. the code needs to be the way it is in the snippet.. but there's no need to "worry about it" :).

Worry is my favorite emotion.  :lol:

I wasn't planning on changing any of your code, except in areas where it remains incomplete.  I wouldn't change any processes.  The only changes I ever made to your core 2007 functions were the addition of some gui interactions and printing of results.  If it works, and it does, there's no need to monkey with it.  :thumbupboth:

===========================sigline======================================================

Cage can be an opinionated jerk who posts without thinking.  He apologizes for this.  He's honestly not trying to be a turkeyhead.

Cage had some freebies, compatible with Poser 11 and below.  His Python scripts were saved at archive.org, along with the rest of the Morphography site, where they were hosted.