"SamuelT." wrote:
> 
> I already use interpolate 2 for the image_maps I use for the isosurface. I
> posted a new shape a few minutes ago that has nearly no artifacts whatsoever.
> That is because I used triangle_wave for the pigment. Had I used scallop_wave,
> the bad effects would have been very noticeable.
> 
> Samuel Benge
> 
> Bob Hughes wrote:
> 
> > If you notice that when using image_map pigments the 'interpolate' makes
> > a big difference. Seems 2 is best to me, not 4. The isosurface probably
> > uses a similar convention itself rather than straight procedural
> > pigment. If it did it would obviously have no noticeable artifacts, or
> > so I would think. Perhaps there is a resolution limitation then? Based
> > upon the 1 POV unit square a pigment is usually confined to?

I suggest you use a 16 bit heigtfield for the pigment. Particularly
the TGA type (the one where if you look at it its red green and yellow)
I wrote the code to use the red portion as most signifigant and the
green 
portion as least. 

But i belive the main problems come from spherical mapping of 2d images.
The orgional isosurface code (which i didn't touch just added a new
function
to turn a 3d pigment to a number between 0 and 1) needs to have real 3d
info. SPherical mapping of 2d images don't give true 3d data so
intersection
and normal tests can run into errors. To fix things of this type the
actual
resolving code would need to be changed and that could break backwards
compatibilty. 
(and to be honest that portion of the iso surface code is beyond me)

Post a reply to this message