|
 |
"Tor Olav Kristensen" <tor### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
> I am afraid that the images made with Softy 3d are meshes,
> not iso-surfaces.
... he says -- as if I didn't know. The ability to vary the mesh resolution is
nice too. Of course, that wasn't the point.
>
> And doing some of the shapes shown at Softy 3D's gallery
> page with iso-surfaces requires a LOT of thinking.
A utility would be helpful here. In fact, one just exactly like
Softy3D with isosurface syntax output instead, would be useful. It's a shame
that Softy3D costs so much.
That was the point: Softy3D results at POV prices. :)
> But one thing that would be nice is if we had a utility
> for converting a POV iso-surface to a mesh.
They would certainly render faster as meshes. However, if you leave them as
iso-surfaces, you can use displacement maps to make the finer details really
stand out. It would take a lot of triangles to capture that level of detail.
It's is the same song with a new verse: memory vs. speed.
> I have never looked into a problem of this kind before,
> so I don't know how difficult that would be.
Warp has looked into it. As recently as Dec. 24, he favored the marching
triangles algorithm. ("Re: isosurface -> mesh?" p.g)
In the long run, I suppose you are right though; it probably really isn't worth
the effort to duplicate Softy3D functionality. Sure there is the "Gee whiz"
factor, but how practical is it?
It was just an idea.
--
light_source{0,1}#macro c(J,a)sphere{0,1pigment{rgb z}scale a translate J+O}
#end#macro B(R,V,O)c(0,4)intersection{c(V,R)difference{c(-z*4x+10)c(-z*4.1x+
10)c(0<7.5,45,5>)}}#end B(12,0z*25)B(8y*4<0,12,50>) // Batronyx ^"^
Post a reply to this message
|
|
