Am 12.09.2016 um 19:17 schrieb Le_Forgeron:

> Do you normalize or truncate ? (aka, how do you handle entry above 1.0 or below 0.0
in various ***_map ?)

(You have to do something about your newsreader; those unbroken lines
keep bothering me again and again when quoting from your posts.)

The pattern does not perform any truncation /per se/, but this can be
overridden by using the `wave_type` keyword.

(Under the hood, this uses a new wave_type that bypasses all truncation;
I intend to review the existing patterns and see if they can be
refactored to allow such a behaviour as well, in which case I'll make
the wave type accessible to the user, maybe along with one or more other
non-repeating wave types.)


> (C) looks simple but are you sure you can get the smallest distance ?
> especially when the strength and radius are different between components, and there
is negative strength in the equation.
> I would not expect (C). It seems easy but fails as soon as there is a negative
strength in the blob, something you cannot forbid.

You may be right: The falloff rate may differ between blob elements.
Another reason to scratch that idea.


> (D) :
> 1. recently, the product of the two max was considered (for something totally
different: bevelled and junctions)
> 2. what about the Max() of contribution (instead of L_1 (sum), it would be another
traditional metric (L_infinity metric IIRC)
> 3. and of course, we could look at L_2 (sqrt(sum(square of contribution))), aka
Euclidian distance. Can be funny or interesting with negative contribution

Those suggestions are all about interaction between two potential
fields, and would thus either constitute change requests for the
behaviour of blobs themselves (interaction of their elements' fields),
or for whatever mechanism would be used to combine two patterns of this
type. Either way they are outside the scope of the pattern.


I've decided to go for both (A) and (B) now, using a boolean setting to
choose between the two.

Post a reply to this message