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

Great! :)
 
>> 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.

Tell me if you encouter problems which could be related to this.

> 
>> 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.

Hmm.. ok, but I am still trying to figure out which control points have to 
lie on a line to make a smooth join.

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

Looks cool.

> 
> 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 do not know much about uv-mapping. Never used it so far. But maybe 
someone else can add support for it.

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

Just gimme some time..

- Micha

-- 
http://objects.povworld.org - the POV-Ray Objects Collection

Post a reply to this message