Hi Jelby,

I understand what you mean now, but it is completely impossible to do that
sort of thing with this macro. In the way this macro works, there is no
knowledge of the actual final shape of the piece. So any test which checks
wether a piece is a "defect" is not being done at the moment. It would be
possible to check for any "defects", but not to do anything with it, since,
when you change a "defect" into a normal piece, it would need the
surrounding pieces to change as well (otherwise they won't fit). When the
surrounding pieces change, there will likely be at least one new "defect".
It would require a lot of code and time to make a "defects_density"
parameter work. I wonder how puzzle manufactures do this...

Well, one very crude method comes to my mind now: simply create random
puzzles (and "defect-test" them) until you find one that matches the desired
defects density. But it is a silly idea.

> I don't know what's the structure of your macro right now, but unlike my
> first suggestion (in the previous post), this one should be no real
problem
> (I guess). :)

So, you guesed wrong :-).

About the waving edges, it can be done but i need a special shape. I'm
thinking about making a deformed square using splines (one spline for each
edge), but i can't find a way to do this.

Greetings,

JWV

"Jellby" <jel### [at] M-yahoocom> wrote in message
news:41285604@news.povray.org...
> Among other things, "JWV" <jwv|at|planet.nl> wrote:
>
> >> - Most real puzzles I've found have a lower density of "special"
pieces,
> >> meaning pieces which are *not* the typical shape:
> >>      ___    ___
> >>     |   |__|   |
> >>    _|          |_
> >>   |_            _|
> >>     |    __    |
> >>     |___|  |___|
> >>
> >> This density of "defects" could be adjusted with some parameters...
> >
> > Could you explain this in a different way, i don't understand what you
> > mean.
>
> I'll try, though it's not so important :)
>
> Many real puzzles are somewhat boring, with all pieces the same general
> shape (some of them even have all pieces exactly the same shape). This
> general shape consist on two bulges on two opposite sides and two holes on
> the other two opposite sites. There are, however, some pieces with
> "special" shapes, which deviate from the typical shape mentioned above
(and
> shown in the ASCII picture). These "special" pieces or "defects" (since
> they make the overall shape non-periodic) can have:
>
>  - three or even four bulges or holes.
>  - two bulges in non-opposite sides (I don't remember having seen this).
>  - a side (I have not seen more) without bulge or hole, just the "wavy"
> shape I described in my previous message.
>
> Your puzzle shows the first two kinds of defect, but in a very high
number,
> there are too many "special" pieces for a typical puzzle, I'd say. I
> suggested you could make this "density of defects" an adjustable
parameter.
> When this parameter is 0, the puzzle would be perfect, completely regular,
> all pieces (except for the straight edges) exactly the same shape, as the
> the parameter increases, the number of "special" pieces increases as
> well... maybe something like this:
>
>  0:   perfect puzzle: bulge to the left, bulge to the right, bulge to the
> left, bulge to right... and bulge down, bulge up, bulge down, bulge up...
>  0.1: each bulge has a 10% probability of being inverted (changed from
left
> to right or from up to down).
>  0.5: the puzzle is completely chaotic, there's no regularity (maybe this
is
> how you do it now?)
>  1:   all bulges are inverted, so the puzzle is again regular, but
> different.
>
> I don't know what's the structure of your macro right now, but unlike my
> first suggestion (in the previous post), this one should be no real
problem
> (I guess). :)
>
> -- 
> light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
> 9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
> 0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby
>

Post a reply to this message