 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Work in progress.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'test.png' (115 KB)
Preview of image 'test.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-9-2016 20:54, clipka wrote:
> Work in progress.
>
So... what's going on exactly?
[hey! right-handed coordinate system] :-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/11/2016 02:54 PM, clipka wrote:
> Work in progress.
>
:) I believe such a pattern could be very useful!
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 12.09.2016 um 09:35 schrieb William F Pokorny:
> On 09/11/2016 02:54 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Work in progress.
>>
> :) I believe such a pattern could be very useful!
That's what I thought, too ;)
It'll also work for isosurfaces, although that's probably less exciting
as it's easy to achieve the same effect with a function pattern there.
I had originally pondered the idea of making the mechanism a function,
but shyed away from the challenge of wading through the function virtual
machine stuff. Implementing new patterns is so much easier! It's as if
someone had already refactored the hell out of that portion of the code
;) [pats himself on the back, then clears his throat]
Can't wait for people to put this to use in emissive media!
And thanks to pattern functions it may also be of interest to the
isosurfers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> On 09/11/2016 02:54 PM, clipka wrote:
> > Work in progress.
> >
> :) I believe such a pattern could be very useful!
>
> Bill P.
Very very true!
What are the odds of having a similar isosurface potential pattern?
Extending that even further, I'd like to see, or help develop an engineering
toolkit that would include "elements" like triangles, or meshes, with data
fields for things like weight, temperature, tension, torsion, stress-strain,
charge, etc where one could assemble them together, and do some basic Finite
Element Analyses
Very nice work :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/12/2016 12:03 PM, clipka wrote:
> Can't wait for people to put this to use in emissive media!
Thanks, just what I need. Another distraction. :)
It opens doors to the imagination.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 12.09.2016 um 15:22 schrieb Bald Eagle:
> William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> On 09/11/2016 02:54 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> Work in progress.
>>>
>> :) I believe such a pattern could be very useful!
>>
>> Bill P.
>
> Very very true!
>
> What are the odds of having a similar isosurface potential pattern?
Pretty close to an odd integer value ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Pretty close to an odd integer value ;)
Hey - that's a pretty --- real and rational answer.
:D
(I guess I should have read ahead in this thread) Yay!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 11.09.2016 um 20:54 schrieb clipka:
> Work in progress.
... because something I still have to figure out is what output is most
useful:
(A) the raw blob potential,
(B) the difference between blob potential and threshold,
(C) the distance to the blob surface, or
(D) yet some other metric.
(A) would have the advantage that the sum of any such patterns would
behave just like a combo of the underlying blobs.
(B) would have the advantage that the pattern would be less dependent on
the blob's specific settings, always giving a zero value at the blob's
surface.
(C) would be advantageous for obvious reasons.
(D) may provide yet unforeseen other advantages.
For isosurfaces, the decision is a bit simpler, as any metric other than
(A) or (B) would be specific to the function used, so for concistency's
sake I'm currently leaning towards one of these two.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 12/09/2016 à 16:53, clipka a écrit :
> Am 11.09.2016 um 20:54 schrieb clipka:
>> Work in progress.
>
> ... because something I still have to figure out is what output is most
> useful:
>
> (A) the raw blob potential,
> (B) the difference between blob potential and threshold,
> (C) the distance to the blob surface, or
> (D) yet some other metric.
>
>
> (A) would have the advantage that the sum of any such patterns would
> behave just like a combo of the underlying blobs.
>
> (B) would have the advantage that the pattern would be less dependent on
> the blob's specific settings, always giving a zero value at the blob's
> surface.
>
> (C) would be advantageous for obvious reasons.
>
> (D) may provide yet unforeseen other advantages.
>
Do you normalize or truncate ? (aka, how do you handle entry above 1.0 or below 0.0 in
various ***_map ?)
(C) looks simple but are you sure you can get the smallest distance ?
especially when the strength and radius are different between components, and there is
negative strength in the equation.
I would not expect (C). It seems easy but fails as soon as there is a negative
strength in the blob, something you cannot forbid.
(A) is the most invariant: you can change the threshold without worry.
(D) :
1. recently, the product of the two max was considered (for something totally
different: bevelled and junctions)
2. what about the Max() of contribution (instead of L_1 (sum), it would be another
traditional metric (L_infinity metric IIRC)
3. and of course, we could look at L_2 (sqrt(sum(square of contribution))), aka
Euclidian distance. Can be funny or interesting with negative contribution
Of course (B) can be applied to (A) and any (D), reversing the effect at the surface
of the blob.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
