|
 |
On 20-11-2017 14:03, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
>> And better yet, using VRand_In_Obj()
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
>
> These are fun - and so comparatively easy to make compared to other types of
> scenes!
Yes, one has no merit at all :-)
>
> I was wondering what your "yield" was in terms of successful placement of random
> points inside. I did a few real quick experiments, and it seemed like I was
> getting _very_ sparse coverage. I did a (Success/TotalTests)*100 calculation,
> and got 1.4%.
I don't know about yield. Using VRand_In_Obj() that should be 100%,
shouldn't it? Anyway, I just increase or decrease the number of objects
and judge the result.
My main focus now is to get a "better" (?) coverage of the arms and legs
compared to the body. They seem to be more sparsely populated. So, my
idea was to use an additional test: function {pow(f_boxed(x,y,z),2)}
provided by Christian Froeschlin some years ago, and thus concentrate
the objects more towards the periphery than towards the centre. However,
I am not sure what I am doing and I have difficulty scaling this to the
correct proportions of the body. Any suggestions there would help me.
>
> I like the [rusted] wire boxes :)
>
Me too.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
