Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in
news:3E83326C.A49E0145@gmx.de: 

> 
> 
> Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> I'm sorry, but I still do not understand what
>> you meant by "function based transforms".
> 
> Well, i meant to base a transfor on a function.  The syntax would be
> like: 
> 
> transform { function { ... } }
> 
> and the function would have to be a vector function with three
> parameters (just like a transform function).  
> 
> transform { function { transform { ... } } }
> 
> would therefore be the same as 
> 
> transform { ... }
> 
> The nice thing would be you could do things like averaging (as
> explained).  Of course this is not implemented yet and i am not even
> sure if it would work under all circumstances (at least nonlinear
> transformations would lead to strange results).

So this sould enable users to do the same thing
to other primitive objects as we can do to iso-
surface objects today ?

That would be great.

But wouldn't it lead to difficulties determining
the intersections between the "tracing ray" and
complex CSG objects ?

And how should the bounding shapes be determined ?


Tor Olav

Post a reply to this message