|
 |
OK. I tried it. It worked.
I was simply failing to think in three dimensions. A plane is two dimensional,
a box is three dimensional. That's what I get for doing most of my POV-Ray
work in the evening after a day of mind numbing work.
Thanks again.
Patrick Hagerty wrote:
> Of course! I did the "plane" method first and forgot that I'm dealing with
> more surfaces with boxes than I am with planes.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Mike Williams wrote:
>
> > Wasn't it Patrick Hagerty who wrote:
> > >I'm playing with gems. (I "wish" they were the real thing. Just POV
> > >stuff, though.)
> > >
> > >I'm observing some anomolous (to me) behavior. I'm using a declaration
> > >to define the gem structure. If I use an "intersection" of box objects,
> > >I get a dirty or noisy material as a result. If I use an intersection
> > >of planes, I get a very clean crystaline result. The code and resultant
> > >images are below.
> >
> > What's happening is that a box rotated by +45 is exactly the same as a
> > box rotated by -45, so you're getting the coincident surface problem.
> > See "2.4.2.5 Why are there strange dark pixels or noise on my CSG
> > object?" in the documentation.
> >
> > If you delete three of the rotated boxes in your intersection it will be
> > the same shape but without most of the speckles. The remaining speckles
> > are caused by the fact that each of the rotated boxes have two faces
> > that are coincident with the unrotated box. E.g. the box that's rotated
> > by y*45 has the top and bottom face still in the same plane.
> >
> > You can fix that by making the first box have a slightly different size.
> >
> > #declare BrilliantJewell = intersection
> > {
> > box { <-1.0001, -1.0001, -1.0001>, <1.0001, 1.0001, 1.0001> }
> > box { <-1.0, -1.0, -1.0>, <1.0, 1.0, 1.0> rotate 45*x }
> > box { <-1.0, -1.0, -1.0>, <1.0, 1.0, 1.0> rotate 45*y }
> > box { <-1.0, -1.0, -1.0>, <1.0, 1.0, 1.0> rotate 45*z }
> >
> > By the way: Don't post images to this newsgroup. Binary files should
> > only be posted to a .binaries newsgroup.
> >
> > --
> > Mike Williams
> > Gentleman of Leisure
Post a reply to this message
|
|
