Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Rune wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> I don't see why you seem to think that it is
>> such a great advantage to use function based
>> environments, if you compare the pros and cons.
>
> Because i have used it and it works very nicely.

You didn't comment on the issue of the environments being complex CSGs
or meshes. I still think that's a big limitation of function based
environments. Sure they have other advantages instead, but I didn't want
to implement both methods, and when choosing just one, I by far prefer
the object based environments.

All the time I have profiled my particle system on its
user-friendliness, and I couldn't have done that with function based
environments.

> Maybe just try it out with some heightfield object
> (and an image_map function in comparison).

"Just try it out"? It's you who have support for it in your system.
Implementing it in mine would take a very long time, and I'm not
interested in it in the first place.

> I remember this flowing animation with two channels
> dividing and merging you once posted, this would be
> a nice test object.

I can send you the image I used for the height_field if you want it...
But I think it would look better if the height_field is rotated by the
angles <5,15,5>. Doing this with an object is extremely easy, even for a
newbie user. Is it that with a function based environment too?

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message