Rune wrote:
> 
> You didn't comment on the issue of the environments being complex CSGs
> or meshes. I still think that's a big limitation of function based
> environments. 
> [...]

Surely it is.  I did not want to start a religious discussion on that
matter. i just wanted to mention that functions might be an improvement in
certain situations and surely would be a solution for certain problems.  I
would never suggest to remove intersection based collisions completely in
favor of function based ones, just an alternative.

Of course the advantages are much more significant if the particles have a
radius (like in my simulation system).

And if user-friendliness was the only criteria isosurfaces would never
have been implemented in the first place... ;-)

> [...]
> 
> But I think it would look better if the height_field is rotated by the
> angles <5,15,5>. Doing this with an object is extremely easy, even for a
> newbie user. Is it that with a function based environment too?

Sure, you should really try the IsoCSG library:

#declare fn_Rotated=
  IC_Transform(
    function { fn_Original(x, y, z) },
    transform { rotate <5,15,5> }
  )

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 13 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message