Micha Riser wrote:
> I have a version with 3 sides and degree 3 working
> now and could provide higher degrees but I don't
> think this would be useful (or?).

Thank you very much. This is perfect so far! :)

Degree 3 is all I need.

> I used formulas 3.1-3.5 for m=3. I am not sure
> about the 'normalisation property' (2.5). As far
> as I see my current implementation does not hold
> this. (what will this have for consequences?)

I don't know. The patch looks very nice in the one test scene I've made
so far.

> I have added support for generating smooth triangles.

It looks perfect!

> I think this shape could be used for subdividing
> smooth triangles.

I'm not sure about that. See below.

> Can you tell me what the conditions are for
> joining triangluar patches smootly?

Well, the triangular patches are meant to fill in the holes between the
regular rectangular patches. I don't think you can create smooth
surfaces consisting entirely of triangular patches. The reason is this:
At the corner points, there should be always exactly four patches
meeting, no matter how many sides each of those patches have. For
example three rectangular patches and one triangular patch.

You could make a sphere-like shape out of just eight triangular patches,
but I think that's about it...

> Please test the macros and try to join some patchs smootly.

Yes, see the animation in p.b.a and the source code in p.t.s-f

If there could also be UV mapping, it would be great. This should be
based on three UV vectors specified by the user (one for each corner).
Of course that means that the macro need to generate a mesh2.

I'm also highly interested in the patches with 5 and 6 edges, as the one
with 3 edges proved to work perfectly... :)

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated July 12)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message