-- 
Cheers
Ger

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'earth00750.jpg' (242 KB)

Preview of image 'earth00750.jpg'

Ger <ger### [at] NoSpamthankyou> wrote:
> --
> Cheers
> Ger

I'd like to see what would happen if you randomized the scaling factor between
0.999 and 1.001.  I have a hunch it wouldn't look so much like broccoli.

Regards,
A.D.B.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/19/2013 10:25 PM, Anthony D. Baye wrote:
> Ger <ger### [at] NoSpamthankyou> wrote:
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Ger
>
> I'd like to see what would happen if you randomized the scaling factor between
> 0.999 and 1.001.  I have a hunch it wouldn't look so much like broccoli.
>
> Regards,
> A.D.B.
>
Doing that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense because it completely 
negates the original concept. That way the scale factor on both parts of 
the sphere can be either up or down.

-- 
Cheers
Ger

Post a reply to this message

Ger <ger### [at] NoSpamthankyou> wrote:
> On 08/19/2013 10:25 PM, Anthony D. Baye wrote:
> > Ger <ger### [at] NoSpamthankyou> wrote:
> >> --
> >> Cheers
> >> Ger
> >
> > I'd like to see what would happen if you randomized the scaling factor between
> > 0.999 and 1.001.  I have a hunch it wouldn't look so much like broccoli.
> >
> > Regards,
> > A.D.B.
> >
> Doing that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense because it completely
> negates the original concept. That way the scale factor on both parts of
> the sphere can be either up or down.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Ger

More often than not, one side will be bigger than the other.  That is all the
process requires.

The way you're doing it, you should at the very least make your factor a random
amount.

From the page where I got the idea, it looks like he may be using a constant
value but randomly choosing whether to shrink or expand.

still, I think the process will work as I've stated.

Regards,
A.D.B.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/20/2013 02:02 PM, Anthony D. Baye wrote:
>
> More often than not, one side will be bigger than the other.  That is all the
> process requires.
>
> The way you're doing it, you should at the very least make your factor a random
> amount.
>
>  From the page where I got the idea, it looks like he may be using a constant
> value but randomly choosing whether to shrink or expand.
>
> still, I think the process will work as I've stated.
>
> Regards,
> A.D.B.
>

I don't know which method is better because each relies on one or more 
random streams. The best way to figure that out is to run a series of tests.

-- 
Cheers
Ger

Post a reply to this message

Ger <ger### [at] NoSpamthankyou> wrote:
> On 08/20/2013 02:02 PM, Anthony D. Baye wrote:
> >
> > More often than not, one side will be bigger than the other.  That is all the
> > process requires.
> >
> > The way you're doing it, you should at the very least make your factor a random
> > amount.
> >
> >  From the page where I got the idea, it looks like he may be using a constant
> > value but randomly choosing whether to shrink or expand.
> >
> > still, I think the process will work as I've stated.
> >
> > Regards,
> > A.D.B.
> >
>
> I don't know which method is better because each relies on one or more
> random streams. The best way to figure that out is to run a series of tests.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Ger

My greatest concern is quality of result, rather than most efficient solution.

3D art us usually a compromise between the two.

I'm currently working on a solution in C++ that will output a PoV-Ray mesh.
I'll post the results when I get the kinks worked out.

Regards,
A.D.B.

Post a reply to this message