 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> That IS a real nice torus image Lance.
Hmmm, are you being sincere Ken, or was that ment to be sarcastic? :)
--
Lance.
---
For the latest MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I can truthfully say I much prefer it over a mirrored ball
floating over a checkered plain ;^ }
You give good torus.
Sincerly,
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
:-)
--
Lance.
---
For the latest MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Daniel Harris <d.h### [at] netcom couk> writes:
> I think it maybe worth my while pointing out to the author of sPatch, (if his
> wrote the export program) to get it to produce povray primitives instead of
> patches...When exporting to povray...This makes parsing *a lot* faster as I
> now know ;-)
sPatch - as its name suggests - is written for generating objects that are
made out of (bicubic) patches. And in my opinion it does a great job in
doing this.
A bicubic patch is also a POV-Ray primitive. However, memory and time
consumption for rendering is significantly higher if you model a cube by
six bicubic patches than by the primitive "box". However, bicubic patches
are a must for modelling organic-like shapes.
Converting bicubic patches to CSG is a non-trivial task and in most cases
impossible. That's why you should use CSG where appropriate and bicubic
patches where needed. Personally, I use hand-written POV-Ray files and
include some objects that were generated by sPatch. As others suggested
you may use other modellers for the CSG part.
Happy tracing
Thomas
--
http://www.fmi.uni-konstanz.de/~willhalm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
