 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6-9-2018 2:47, clipka wrote:
[snip]
> Don't make the same mistake countless of women make when talking to
> their spouse: Don't expect me to successfully read between lines. I'm a
> man, man ;)
>
ROFL !
[OT]
A typical conversion between me and my wife:
Wife: Give me the and go to the.
Me: Sorry. What do you want and where am I to go?
Wife: Oh! Are you stupid? Do I have to spell it out?!
We always make jokes about it afterwards of course. However, and
typically, that type of short-hand conversation between women is fluid,
albeit incomprehensible to the average man. ;-)
[/OT]
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-9-2018 22:55, clipka wrote:
> Am 05.09.2018 um 08:37 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> I am not sure I understand what I am looking at. The shadows suggest a
>> thoroughly torn up object (the shredding I suppose).
>
> I think it's a Calabi-Yau manifold...
>
Ah... ok...
[scratches lice in pelt and shambles back to cave]
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/09/2018 07:41, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 6-9-2018 2:47, clipka wrote:
> [snip]
>> Don't make the same mistake countless of women make when talking to
>> their spouse: Don't expect me to successfully read between lines. I'm a
>> man, man ;)
>>
>
> ROFL !
>
> [OT]
>
> A typical conversion between me and my wife:
>
> Wife: Give me the and go to the.
>
> Me: Sorry. What do you want and where am I to go?
>
>
> We always make jokes about it afterwards of course. However, and
> typically, that type of short-hand conversation between women is fluid,
> albeit incomprehensible to the average man. ;-)
>
> [/OT]
>
I think that I've cracked it. I've learned to argue like a woman.
Go for the kidneys not the throat. ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> Feel free to pick up the glove you've thrown at our feet, and
> participate in making it better.
> The key feature of an open source project is that users can /actively/
> participate in improving the software, rather than jsut talk about ways
> to improve it.
>
> So if you /really/ want the POV-Ray documentation improved, don't just
> tell us in what ways it is wrong - get your hands dirty and write up
> revised text for the section (or a completely new section), complete
> with examples and images if you like, and contact Jim Holsenback to get
> it into the Wiki (which will eventually end up in the inbuilt help).
http://news.povray.org/povray.advanced-users/message/%3Cweb.577ee122ff0686005e7df57c0%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3Cweb.577e
e122ff0686005e7df57c0%40news.povray.org%3E
> The question you ASKED was:
>
> "Probably a dumb question, but can only meshes be UV mapped?"
NOPE.
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/message/%3C5b8a7142%241%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3C5b8a7142%241%40news.povr
ay.org%3E
> That has been fully answered by Jerome, (A) by a list of UV-mapped
> primitives and (B) by referene to said documentations section as his
> source of information.
> Which definitely hinted at the fact that you consider the
> documentation wanting in that area, but the wording left a lot of room
> for interpretation:
It wasn't a hint - I came out and said that it was incomplete.
Here are the defaults, ... that can be changed.... ... ... ..." "."
"We're sorry, but the network executives have canceled this program..."
........
> - Was this about the /location/ of the information, or its /extent/?
https://i.imgur.com/Im2Hai0.jpg
> Don't make the same mistake countless of women make when talking to
> their spouse: Don't expect me to successfully read between lines. I'm a
> man, man ;)
I can't believe you just took advantage of this situation to flaunt your White
Male Privilege in the POV-Ray Patriarchy and a) assume my Gender, b) fail to
realize that YOUR gender is simply a fluid social construct, and c) Man-splain
to me. Jeez, you even gave me a hard time because my mod() operations weren't
BINARY.
:P
> > Kenneth. I want Kenneth as my POV-Ray lawyer.
>
> Who, BTW, explicitly confirmed that /my/ reply to that thread - and I
> quote verbatim - "was... reasonable" ;)
[ Way to move the goalposts. ]
Indeed, but that particular post bordered on fisticuffs with someone else, and
exemplified the ideology of, "You don't like it? Tough ----"
Still love what you do here, and that you have the energy and motivation to do
it.
But the documentation is still incomplete, right where I said it was and why.
Why can't you just admit it when you're WRONG?
Hrrrrmpfh. MEN.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 06.09.2018 um 12:51 schrieb Bald Eagle:
>> The question you ASKED was:
>>
>> "Probably a dumb question, but can only meshes be UV mapped?"
>
>
> NOPE.
>
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/message/%3C5b8a7142%241%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3C5b8a7142%241%40news.povr
> ay.org%3E
Ooops, my mistake - that was indeed Mike who asked that. So your
question was - and I quote verbatim:
""
Great. How am I supposed to interpret and answer THAT?
42. There. You have your answer.
>>> Kenneth. I want Kenneth as my POV-Ray lawyer.
>>
>> Who, BTW, explicitly confirmed that /my/ reply to that thread - and I
>> quote verbatim - "was... reasonable" ;)
>
> [ Way to move the goalposts. ]
Some people accuse me of being a dick, so yes, I treasure any positive
mention ;)
> Indeed, but that particular post bordered on fisticuffs with someone else, and
> exemplified the ideology of, "You don't like it? Tough ----"
Interestingly, that person had already stepped down from any position of
authority to decide what needs fixing in POV-Ray and what doesn't.
> But the documentation is still incomplete, right where I said it was and why.
>
> Why can't you just admit it when you're WRONG?
It runs in the family. A long line of teachers and Prussian public
officials meets stubborn Westphalian farmers.
> Hrrrrmpfh. MEN.
And then there's that, yes.
:)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Update:
I managed to work out a system by which I can calculate a 2D parametric function
to "draw" on the "global" UV-patch, determine which patch each particular point
is on, and what the uv coordinates are for that point on the patch.
Then I take those uv coordinates and use the Bernstein polynomials to map it
onto the Bezier patch on the surface of the torus.
Confused the hell out of me, took way longer than it should have, and some bugs
seem to have crept in, but all the code is there, and now I think I can go back,
refactor everything, tighten up the code a bit, and see where the errors are.
It's _supposed to be_ a noiseless torus with a coil wrapping around it 5 times -
but these things almost never work out right the first time around.
And I still need to write functions for partial derivatives to get tangent
vectors, and then cross those vectors to get the normals.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'bezierstitching_test_3.png' (632 KB)
Preview of image 'bezierstitching_test_3.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Update:
> It's _supposed to be_ a noiseless torus with a coil wrapping around it 5 times -
> but these things almost never work out right the first time around.
OHHHHhhhhhh, so much debugging.
Still a little glitch to work out, but it's super close.
> And I still need to write functions for partial derivatives to get tangent
> vectors, and then cross those vectors to get the normals.
I think this should be trivial in comparison. :D
So - here's a coil wrapping around a torus 5 times. Super easy as a sphere
weep and parametric or isosurface or polynomial... but if the torus is
deformed...
With the bicubic_patch system, everything follows the surface of the torus.
Apologies for my complete lack of artistic talent on short notice.
It's a proof-of-concept WIP.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'bezierstitchedtoruswithcurve.png' (997 KB)
Preview of image 'bezierstitchedtoruswithcurve.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nice trash torus!
Am 18.09.2018 um 21:11 schrieb Bald Eagle:
> [...] Super easy as a sphere weep [...]
Yeah, sometimes that's exactly what that primitive is ;)
> Apologies for my complete lack of artistic talent on short notice.
I disagreed with you previously, and I disagree with you now ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-9-2018 21:28, clipka wrote:
> Nice trash torus!
>
>
> Am 18.09.2018 um 21:11 schrieb Bald Eagle:
>
>> [...] Super easy as a sphere weep [...]
>
> Yeah, sometimes that's exactly what that primitive is ;)
I am out of handkerchiefs...
>
>
>> Apologies for my complete lack of artistic talent on short notice.
>
> I disagreed with you previously, and I disagree with you now ;)
>
Me too! This one is fine!
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/18/2018 03:11 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> "Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>> Update:
>
...
> So - here's a coil wrapping around a torus 5 times. Super easy as a sphere
> weep and parametric or isosurface or polynomial... but if the torus is
> deformed...
>
> With the bicubic_patch system, everything follows the surface of the torus.
> Apologies for my complete lack of artistic talent on short notice.
> It's a proof-of-concept WIP.
>
Ah, neat! Apology unnecessary - I like it.
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
