3
$\begingroup$

the question:

is this really in scope? I mean it can be done on paper. Still theres a computer question on how it could be made made.

For this question:

  • Is it in scope?
  • What can be done to make it better?
  • What kind of changes would it need?
  • What would the OP need to demonstrate to show due diligence is done?
| |
$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Although the question seems simple to someone who knows how it works, there are aspects that are not immediately obvious to everyone (like how can there be more than 2 frames of animation?).

I don't feel that the fact that it can be done on paper is a problem. You can paint a 3D scene on paper, or you can generate and print a 3D scene on paper using a computer. We don't want questions on painting by hand, but questions on generating images to later be printed on paper are fine (as long as it is about how to generate the image, not how to change the paper).

I can see there being valid questions on the topic of grating animations, and how to write a program that generates images suitable for a given grating. The explanation of how they work is simple, but I'd expect there to be subtleties beyond that. For example, the transition between frames may be able to be smoothed by considering the shapes of the strips of image.

The only thing I would change is to show what you have tried. Hopefully this will also narrow it down to "I'm confused about this aspect" rather than a general "how does this work?".

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I realise this was a made up question to test the boundaries, and that you already understand how they work. That's a little difficult to do (I've had difficulty writing such questions myself) and I've also found it difficult to write a meta answer pretending that's not the case, but hopefully it's still useful in giving the community something to vote up or down and to promote further discussion. $\endgroup$ – trichoplax Aug 18 '15 at 18:07
  • $\begingroup$ I added a simple voting scheme to this question. $\endgroup$ – joojaa Aug 18 '15 at 18:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The simple voting scheme does however not seem to leave much room for well-motivated argumentation. I'm not sure if it's the best approach to this discussion. $\endgroup$ – Bart Aug 18 '15 at 18:32
  • $\begingroup$ I've been adding meta answers for voting on things myself, but just discovered it's not always a good idea. $\endgroup$ – trichoplax Aug 18 '15 at 19:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .