|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Am 05.04.2010 16:19, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
> First question: what would be the space filling pattern ?
> The cubic system comes first to mind, but there is a few other (where
> are cristallographers when you need them ?)
Any and all periodic space tiling in 2D or 3D cartesian space can be
projected to an equivalent square/cubic tiling simply by applying affine
transformations and choosing suitable tiles.
Thus, all you'll really need for parameterization - besides the set of
objects to repeat - is a set of up to 3 vectors (depending on whether
you want to repeat along a line, a plane, or in 3D space) to specify the
- possibly skewed - axes (and periods) of a suitable periodic tiling
scheme. (Note that your set of objects might in itself have to duplicate
certain substructures already.)
> Short of the system to fill the space, it might just be an issue of
> having a "csg" object to hold your repeated construction (inside a unit
> sphere ? rather than a unit cube ?) to translate on the fly the ray
> intersection's computation (whenever the ray would hit a sphere, a
> transformation (translation) is done to the ray to perform the children
> intersection, children assumed to be at origin)
Whatever the repeated object's bounding box, I'd suggest.
> Caveat: all_intersection method should be limited to a depth, or we are
> going to have issue.
That depends on implementation: If the actual handling would be done by
object code, you're perfectly right; if it would be handled by tracing
code, all_intersections could be left untouched (but care would still
need to be taken to prevent endless iterations where.
> How would you name them ?
> clipka1D, clipka2D, clipka3D ?
Of course! :-P
Then again, a syntax like
union {
repeat {
[ VECTOR [, VECTOR [, VECTOR ] ] ]
[ max_recursion FLOAT ]
...
}
would have the benefit of not adding any new keywords ;-).
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |