High!

clipka wrote:

> For instance, the notion that "1+a*800" should be the correct vertex index
> baseline for loop #a may seem intuitive - but as a matter of fact it's wrong.
> For instance, loop #1 - the very first loop - is comprised of vertices
> #1..#800, matching a loop baseline formula of 1+(a-1)*800.

I once again checked it via pocket calculator - and yes, you're right! 
All faces are properly defined - only the north polar belt (i. e. belt 
#398, with baseline vertices going like <317601, 317602, 318401>, 
<317602, 317603, 318401> and so on) is not rendered at all! And it 
probably is a matter of the very last vertex, #318401...

(10 minutes later)

No, it isn't... I found out that when I change the divisor in the vertex 
definition section from 400 to 398, the north polar gap disappears! So 
the result might not be entirely "geographically" accurate, but 
esthetically satisfying...

But I still doubt whether sticking to this kind of work methods will 
ever make me a commercially successful programmer... I'm more like a 
shaggy drop-out log cabin tinkerer than a sophisticated computer scientist!

By the way, when using radiosity the strangely "glowing" portions near 
Amalthea's north pole continue to exist - so it probably is a matter of 
radiosity rather than mesh geometry!

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

Post a reply to this message