Warp wrote:
> 
> Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> : But meanwhile officially sanctioned by the POV-Team (slope pattern)
> : although this is still marked as experimental of course.
> 
>   I think that uv-mapping can be considered another one.
> 
>   I don't think there's anything wrong in a texture knowing the normal
> vector of the object at the evaluation point. I can't think of any reason
> why this would be a bad thing.

There is good and bad things.

The bad thing is that traditionnally the procedural textures do not depend 
on the objects there are used over. The objects are immerged into the
pattern spaces.

The good thing is that it would avoid strange code just like in checker
and allow an easier code which would not scale/translate the point 
in order to avoid the hard transition for integer number. Assuming of course
that the normal provided is ALWAYS to the outside...
But it would require a rewrite of most of the patterns.

May be it's time for the next megapov documentation to have a distinction
between 3D traditional patterns and 2D (uv-like and normal dependant) patterns.
Even if they are both called patterns, they are really two different beasts!

Post a reply to this message