In article <3a5b1acd@news.povray.org>, "Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> 
wrote:

> Deforming functions due to simple mathematical functions can be fine. 
> But the kinds of transformations I'm talking about are things like 
> for example animating a character. This can hardly be done by having 
> the user modifying functions.

That would be pretty difficult... :-)


> So far character animation in POV-Ray has always been using robots, 
> or if organic objects were used, they were not UV-mapped, and if they 
> were, they were animated in another program and then exported to 
> POV-Ray. I would like to animate organic, UV-mapped characters in 
> POV-Ray itself. The deformation features I'm talking about would be 
> an important part of making that possible.



> But is it worth it making such big changes to POV-Ray just to be able 
> to animate characters? I think yes. I believe good character 
> animation is considered the highest achievement in the 3d graphics 
> industry. And besides, the deformations I'm talking about would be 
> useful for *many* other things too.

I didn't say they wouldn't...


> > You're a little late...Wlodzimierz ABX Skiba has already
> > been working on a deform patch, which apparently can work on
> > all objects.
> 
> And that's great. But I believe the kind of features I
> suggested hasn't been discussed.

The patch is still in a very early stage...don't expect highly complex 
features from the start.


> Tessellation and deformation is not the same thing. Although it would 
> indeed make deform features even more useful.

What I meant was that objects can now be tesselated into meshes, which 
would be easier to deform than ordinary objects, and it might be 
possible to combine the two processes.


> > All of this was discussed, including the possibility of using
> > warps.
> 
> Not well enough I think.

Did you bother to read those threads?


> You snipped the most important part...

Because it was long. :-)


> Chris, that doesn't make sense. Textures and objects are entirely 
> different things and cannot be deformed in the same way. Allow me to 
> explain.

They are not entirely different...it depends on how you approach things.


> AFAIK textures are deformed in a backward kind-of-way, while meshes 
> are deformed in a forward kind-of-way. That means that one piece of a 
> texture can be copied to several locations (think repeat warp). That 
> is not possible with meshes.

Not without re-tesselating the mesh or doing some pretty ugly 
calculations, true...and it depends on how the deformation is 
implemented. It might be possible to tesselate and deform in one step, 
allowing things like the repeat warp.


> Meshes work the other way around. That means that several pieces of a 
> mesh can be moved to the same location (think of a mesh snake that 
> bends and bites its own tail). This is not possible with textures. 
> Texture space can't overlap itself.
> 
> Even if some texture warps can be used on objects too, they will not 
> give identical perpetuations on textures and meshes. But saying that 
> *all* deformations should work for both textures and objects is 
> nonsense. That's what my logic tells me anyway.

I never said that they should all be available for both, or that they 
would be identical. But for many deformations, like turbulence, black 
holes, "twist", etc... it certainly makes sense to use the common syntax.


> I would appreciate if you would reconsider my suggestions so we could 
> maybe have a more rewarding discussion about them.

Are you confusing me with someone else? You seem to be reacting as if I 
said your suggestions weren't any good...

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message