In article <3a5b8dfc@news.povray.org>, "Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> 
wrote:

> I thought this method could work for meshes only, since it would do 
> moving of vertices.

Then it should probably be a specialized feature of meshes, not of a 
"deform" feature...hmm, am I the only one who has noticed there seems to 
be a lot more mesh ideas/patch work being done lately?


> The relative type would be useful for things like bone systems, where 
> every part of the mesh is deformed, and the original locations of the 
> vertices should not have any affection at all. In this case you would 
> want to make sure that your entire mesh is enclosed by the fields.

It might be a better idea to just implement a bone system. Maybe a new 
kind of mesh..."boned_mesh"...would be the easiest way to do things. I'm 
not sure the "deform fields" idea will be very easy to use...but inverse 
kinematics features could be worked into a boned mesh feature, and it 
might be easier to make a new kind of object instead of trying to work 
the additional data/algorithms/syntax into the existing mesh object.


> I still don't know what would be the best way to define the fields with.
> Patterns, blob-like fields, maybe both options, or maybe something 
> entirely different?

Patterns would be the most flexible way. Remember, you can make 
blob-like fields with a pattern, too. You might even be able to use the 
blob pattern. :-)

-- 
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