Chris Huff wrote:
> 
> In article <3995C000.235C4553@club-internet.fr>, Francois Dispot
> <woz### [at] club-internetfr> wrote:
> 
> > The advantage is that there is no equation here to describe the object;
> > the proximity pattern does all the job.
> 
> Actually, one of my planned enhancements to the proximity pattern
> consists of adding a proximity function to some of the shapes...objects
> which can't be computed this way, like some CSG's, would still use the
> sample method, but objects like spheres and boxes would use their own
> equations. Of course, all this would be hidden from the user...

I have already thought about this for meshes and it should be fast to
get the distance from a point to a mesh. Knowing whether it is inside or
not is a different problem...

> > The sad point is that the rendering times are absolutely insane.
> > As Chris wrote, there is a granularity issue here, and very strong
> > sampling for the proximity detection, high accuracy for the isosurface,
> > and a bit of AA are necessary to get a fairly ugly and tiny image of a
> > very simple object.

> > "Material" questions could certainly be solved the same way to get the
> > texture follow the object transformation.
> 
> I don't understand what you mean...

If you apply a texture to the above object, you will do so after its
shape is transformed. Thus it is not transformed. If you want to bend a
wooden object, you need to bend the wood pigment the same way you bend
the shape. Here it has not been done (well, the plain white pigment is
quite versatile ;-)

> --
> Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] maccom
> TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
> Personal Web page: http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
> TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/

-- 

      __  __ __  __  _
|  | /  \  /  / |_  /  |/
\/\/ \__/ /_ /_ |__ \_ |\

Post a reply to this message