|
|
In article <3c4ec167@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>
wrote:
> The effect of this is that when the problematic case happens, the normal
> is inverted inside the heightfield code. Then it's inverted again at the
> upper level, thus nullifying the inversion.
Yuck.
Any idea what the visual effects of this will be? I don't think it will
look correct. You will be seeing a surface with the normal pointing away
from you, I think that unless you toss an "fabs()" into the mix, you
will end up with negative diffuse values.
Hmm, using "fabs()" might be a better method than inverting the normal
anyway...
I still like my method: If the triangle normal is pointing towards you,
but the interpolated normal is pointing away, ignore the intersection
and the next one with the same object. The effect should be that you
just don't see the corners that you shouldn't be seeing...it might even
round out the outline a little.
This would probably be quite difficult to code, though...
--
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
Post a reply to this message
|
|