Le 26/11/2009 15:54, Jorge Stolfi nous fit lire :

> In any case, there are gazillions of POV-Ray
> sources out there which use pretty complicated "blob"s and have
> been carefully optimized to work with the current formula.  A
> change in the formula may improve the result of some of those
> images, but will surely break many others.
> 
> So, merely changing the  default "N" is not a viable alternative,
> even with implicit adjustments to the other parameters.  Changing
> "N" must require an explicit user choice.
> 
> On the other hand, the automatic ajustments will be very helpful
> to users who wish to convert their existing order=2 blobs to order=4
> blobs.  If the "R" and "S" parameters are adjusted by POV-ray so
> as to preserve the efective shape parameters "r" and "s" of a
> "diatomic molecule" with "dist(C1,C2) = r", then chances are that
> the appearance of the user's blobs too will be improved with little
> change to their overall shape.
> 

So, maybe, instead of a replacement for blob, we need a name for the
neoblob (sh*t about any reference to a bad movie), and both could live
together happily in the SDL.

mesh & mesh2 are the same core object, despite the different syntax.
For blob & neoblob, it would be just kind of opposite !

Please, do not stick with "neoblob" naming, find something:
 - short ("continuous_blob" is far too long, "fourth_order_blob" too!)
 - meaningful (sort of, don't call it "zziau" whatever it might mean)
 - without historical aspect (neo = new... so bad naming! as bad as
"revised_blob")
 - not a syntax extension of the actual blob (no "blob { smoother ...",
as it would lock together the future evolutions of both mathematical
beasts (every option of one would have to be available on the other,
unless you want to confuse the final user. do we want more confusion ?)

> All the best,
> 
> --stolfi

Did you look at the implication on the cylinder-blob ?
Does the new formula works fine too for them ?

Thanks for the illustrating pictures.

Post a reply to this message