"Christopher James Huff" wrote:
> They are most often going to be used with built-in
> patterns and user defined functions, taking the points
> in space allows them to be done without seams, and in
> the case of the sphere, without "pinching" at the poles.

I'm aware of this, but there are also cases where one does indeed want to
use a specially designed image_map. I think it'd be best to provide the
option to use either method.

> This way, you can easily adapt images simply by using
> the existing mappings (an extra keyword and number)

No, aligning the pattern right can be a big problem. Imagine a cylinder
going from <1,2,3> to <6,5,4> - not so easy to fit the pattern to that
object. So I think that the option to use the <0,0> to <1,1> area should be
internally supported in the macros.

> They are still "height fields", they are objects in
> which the height varies...

Ask anyone about the height of a cylinder, and you'll get an answer that
certainly doesn't fit which the definition of height in the macros in
question. "Height" does not make sense for a cylinder, and for a sphere it
only applies if the context is making planetoids.

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Feb 16)
POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message