"Ron Parker" wrote:
> > * The two different version of facets really have not very
> > much to do with each other. It's almost as if it is two
> > different workarounds.
>
> Not "workarounds" exactly, but two different methods definitely.

And none of them very powerful IMHO. As if it were two different attempts to
obtain the same goal.

> Actually, it scales with the object it's on, since it's
> based on curvature.

I know, but real patterns only scale when you tell them to.

> A big sphere will have exactly the same number of facets
> as a small one.

I'm quite aware of how it works...! ;)

> I like it.  The combination of bumps and facets could
> be interesting; it won't look like the current facets,
> but it will be unique.

You could use it together with any zero-height normal (like bumps 0.0) to
get the current behavior. But you could do so much more... I think it would
also be interesting together with wrinkles... Or wood... Or even just a
heavily turbulated gradient x (it should be implemented so that it is always
applied *after* the turbulence; it should be the last thing applied at all).

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated June 26)
POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message