Isaac Schwabacher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, but that's not the problem. The issue is when
> you use that result to index into the array:[...]
Right, as you illustrated (and mentioned earlier) there is a base0 versus base1 indexing.
So all is good; the coordinates reported by the OP were (68, 33, 52) versus (68, 32, 51), but it escaped my attention that the former coordinates were based on linear base0 indexing.
Thanks for clarifying this.
