|
 |
Am 20.08.2016 um 23:22 schrieb Bald Eagle:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>> One thing is for sure: You've seriously screwed up on the icosahedron.
>>
>> Apparently you misinterpreted the positions of the individual points,
>> probably thinking that Phi<1, but in fact Phi>1.
>>
>> Swapping the 1's and Phi's in the TwentyHedron definition gives a nice
>> regular icosahedron.
>
> Are you just pulling my leg now?
> Because my definition of Phi is in the code, and when I comment out ALL of the
> vnormalize() directives, I get ... an icosahedron.
Then you must be using a different code than the one you posted. (Note
that the posted code doesn't actually show the icosahedron at all, only
the subdivided result.)
> And considering that the vertices are defined by ALL of the permutations of
> +/-1, 0, and +/-Phi, I don't see how "swapping" those values in any given vertex
> doesn't just give me ... another one of the points I already have.
It gives you the same set of vertices, but ordered differently, thus
giving you a different set of triangles.
> I'm going to add a little bit to my code to visualize the vertex normals of the
> smooth_triangles, because I'm having a devil of a time visualizing your
> description of how that all works at the moment. Your explanation of the
> situation is perfectly clear - the 3D result of that is just [for me] less so.
>
> Please also notice that there are a few green pixels in/on the lower left MESH
> icosahdron - the rotate y*180 degree instance. A small, but seemingly important
> detail, if using mesh{} is supposed to eliminate that problem.
No, the smooth_triangles issue is also present in (smooth) meshes.
> I haven't declared an inside_vector - could it be related in some way to that?
Nope, that's unrelated.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
