 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-12-2011 18:22, B. Gimeno wrote:
> Gentlemen: Times change. To attract the world's attention on this problem I
> suggest the following hashtags in tweeter:
>
> #Freedom2RC4
> #JustinBieberNeedsRC4
> #PenroseTiling4PoversNOW
>
We oldies have not yet discovered tweeter ;-)
Especially the Justin Bieber one is going to be effective I am sure :-)
Aahh... how time flies! In my days I would have said Paul & Ringo need
RC4... :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 09.12.2011 00:09, schrieb Stephen:
> On 08/12/2011 3:10 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 8-12-2011 15:16, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> On 12/08/2011 02:52 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> On 7-12-2011 22:36, Stephen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it was a touch of gentle pressure.
>>>>>
>>>>> We want, what do we want?
>>>>
>>>> I suggest we go on strike. No more POV-Ray images here until we get
>>>> RC4!
>>>>
>>>> Hmmmm.... afraid that won't work.... ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thomas
>>>
>>> LOL ... The start of an Occupy POV-Ray movement?
>>
>> Yeah! We are the 99%! ;-)
>>
>> Thomas
>
>[Occupy_POV01.jpg]
POV-Ray releases are like new computers: As soon as you got it, you wish
you'd have waited a week or two to get That One Even Better Offer.
For instance, I don't think this will make it into RC4 (guess what it is...)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'subdivide.png' (276 KB)
Preview of image 'subdivide.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/12/2011 10:29 AM, clipka wrote:
> POV-Ray releases are like new computers: As soon as you got it, you wish
> you'd have waited a week or two to get That One Even Better Offer.
>
Isn't that the truth?
I'm sure you know that we are only having fun. :-)
> For instance, I don't think this will make it into RC4 (guess what it
> is...)
Internal sub-division of meshes?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 09.12.2011 11:48, schrieb Stephen:
> I'm sure you know that we are only having fun. :-)
With a grain of truth though, I'm sure ;-)
>> For instance, I don't think this will make it into RC4 (guess what it
>> is...)
>
> Internal sub-division of meshes?
Yup.
So far it works for smooth meshes where each vertex has only one common
normal for all faces it is part of. (Or, more informally, for meshes
without intentional creases).
Handling creases will be somewhat more difficult, as it requires
triangle adjacency information at parse time.
Mesh boundaries pose yet another challenge.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/12/2011 2:50 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 09.12.2011 11:48, schrieb Stephen:
>
>> I'm sure you know that we are only having fun. :-)
>
> With a grain of truth though, I'm sure ;-)
>
>>> For instance, I don't think this will make it into RC4 (guess what it
>>> is...)
>>
>> Internal sub-division of meshes?
>
> Yup.
>
> So far it works for smooth meshes where each vertex has only one common
> normal for all faces it is part of. (Or, more informally, for meshes
> without intentional creases).
>
> Handling creases will be somewhat more difficult, as it requires
> triangle adjacency information at parse time.
>
> Mesh boundaries pose yet another challenge.
I suppose it will be very useful for PovRay generated meshes. And could
be used with the Iso-approximation macros.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback <nom### [at] nomail com> wrote:
> On 12/04/2011 08:52 PM, clipka wrote:
> > Am 05.12.2011 02:44, schrieb clipka:
> >> .... Penrose "P1" tiled plane.
> >
> > ditto, but with just two colors.
>
> a touch of irid on this metal texture turned out cool ... had to dial
> down diffuse before it looked like I wanted
seems checkered plane days are numbered.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-12-2011 17:58, nemesis wrote:
>
> seems checkered plane days are numbered.
>
>
[sigh] even the best things disappear... [re-sigh] :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> ... non-periodically tiled plane.
>
> Did you know that an infinite plane can be tiled in a way that it does
> not repeat in any direction, despite following clear-cut rules?
>
> One such tiling is the Penrose "P3" tiling shown in the attached image.
>
> Fun fact: There are actually at least two different P3 tilings, but no
> mortal could ever tell them apart - because any finite sub-section of
> one can be found in the other as well.
Hi, What's the texture you used for the tiles? could you post it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 09.12.2011 00:09, schrieb Stephen:
> > On 08/12/2011 3:10 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> >> On 8-12-2011 15:16, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> >>> On 12/08/2011 02:52 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> >>>> On 7-12-2011 22:36, Stephen wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, it was a touch of gentle pressure.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We want, what do we want?
> >>>>
> >>>> I suggest we go on strike. No more POV-Ray images here until we get
> >>>> RC4!
> >>>>
> >>>> Hmmmm.... afraid that won't work.... ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thomas
> >>>
> >>> LOL ... The start of an Occupy POV-Ray movement?
> >>
> >> Yeah! We are the 99%! ;-)
> >>
> >> Thomas
> >
> >[Occupy_POV01.jpg]
>
> POV-Ray releases are like new computers: As soon as you got it, you wish
> you'd have waited a week or two to get That One Even Better Offer.
>
> For instance, I don't think this will make it into RC4 (guess what it is...)
Is this Catmull Clark Subdivision? too cool !
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 31.01.2018 um 08:18 schrieb mathzhaoliang:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> ... non-periodically tiled plane.
>>
>> Did you know that an infinite plane can be tiled in a way that it does
>> not repeat in any direction, despite following clear-cut rules?
>>
>> One such tiling is the Penrose "P3" tiling shown in the attached image.
>>
>> Fun fact: There are actually at least two different P3 tilings, but no
>> mortal could ever tell them apart - because any finite sub-section of
>> one can be found in the other as well.
>
>
>
>
> Hi, What's the texture you used for the tiles? could you post it?
I don't recall the exact settings. I'm pretty sure it used both a color
map and a bump map, both of which were certainly based on the "tiling
27" pattern.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
