> Hey, I was under the impression that the slope pattern did not take into
> account any normal statements in the texture, but it seems it does, at
least
> now.
>
> This is very good in some situations and very bad in others. What do
others
> think?


In the bad situations, you can take the slope pattern out of the pigment and
map the entire texture wth a slope pattern; then the normal inside the
texture won't be taken into account.

> It's even possible to create normals based on the slope - and these
normals
> are then again taken into account in other slope patterns for that
surface,
> like in the pigment. This is strange somehow, because either it would
> involve recursive calls, or else the order in which texture elements are
> calculated internally must somehow affect the result. Further
investigation
> from others needed I guess.

Well... the only way you can have a normal statement inside a slope pattern
is if the slope pattern is applied to the entire texture, for mapping
textures. You can put more slope patterns inside that, but the only time
they can be affected by a normal{} block is when you put them inside a
corresponding pigment{} block, and then you're unable to nest any more
slope-dependant textures inside it.

- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
[ http://www.slimeland.com/images/ ]

Post a reply to this message