On 30-5-2018 1:37, Kenneth wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>
>> If that doesn't work, I'm pretty sure no other construct will - except
>> of course for individually un-doing the transformation for each
>> component in the texture map:
>>
>>      #local Trans = transform {
>>        translate <...>
>>        ...
>>      }
>>
>>      texture {
>>        image_pattern { ... }
>>        texture_map {
>>          [0.0 pigment { ... transform { Trans inverse } ]
>>          [1.0 pigment { ... transform { Trans inverse } ]
>>        }
>>        transform { Trans }
>>      }
> 
> Yes, it seems that something very similar (identical?) to that construction is
> required.
> 
> Thomas, try this example; it *looks* like it works-- the image_map or
> image_pattern IS transformed, whereas the colors/pattern in the texture map are
> NOT (or rather, they are inverse-transformed to bring them back to the original
> look. I think!)  I made some simplifications to your code, so I could understand
> what I was seeing. And the 'use-alpha' feature is something I haven't played
> around with, until now.

The first suggestion by Christoph was correct and I somehow was blinded. 
;-) I still need to get to what I want precisely though, which needs 
more blood, sweat & tears from my part.

When satisfied, I shall post the image.

> 
> Aside: In your code example, you have emission at 1.0. Are you actually seeing
> any effects of the NORMAL that way? I thought such an emission value would
> eliminate the normal's appearance (due to it being a 'lighting-based' effect.)

That emission is still an on/off addition from my part about which I 
have not yet made up my mind. Not important for now.

Thanks for the thoughts!

[snip]

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message