"Jellby" <jel### [at] M-yahoocom> wrote in message
news:3e22cdb3@news.povray.org...

> I can explain, but I don't know if it has any sense. Since I was using the
> functions for isosurfaces, I wanted to see the surface where Norm*f_Orb =
> value, which is the same as f_Orb = value/Norm and the same as
> value/Norm-f_Orb = 0 (in this way, so that the zones with higher values are
> *inside* the isosurface. For the negative part, I wanted Norm*f_Orb =
> -value. It seemed it rendered faster in this way.

It certainly make sense. Now your isosurface is that part of the proba-
bility distribution that is equal to 'value'. I haven't thought about the
isosurfaces.
But if you use it for density in media, then you have to use the 'normal'
function. The advance of media is that you can see the inner structure too.
By the way, I've shifted the value of the wave function by 0.5, in order to
be in the middle of the range 0 .. 1 for the color_map if you visualize the
wave function itself. It's about the same tric.

> I meant something like:
>
> #declare foo = isosurface { blah, blah texture { cool_texture } }
>
> isosurface {
>   foo
>   function { this(x,y,z) }
> }
> isosurface {
>   foo
>   function { that(x,y,z) }
> }
>
> I think I tried it and it didn't work
>

I think it won't work because if you declare a isosurface the
function has to be inside it's '{}'. But you can better ask that
the real advanced guys. (p.a-u) :)

Jaap Frank

Post a reply to this message