 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
My understanding has been that a degenerate triangle is
just three points that don't really make a triangle.
Could someone please explain why POV-Ray complains that
the following smooth_triangle is "degenerate"? (v1,v2, and v3
come out fine as a plain 'flat' triangle).
#declare v1=<116.50351, 37.28418, -14.46650>;
#declare n1=<-0.87727, -0.19526, 0.43849>;
#declare v2=<73.18535, 44.36221, -1.11751>;
#declare n2=<-0.90956, 0.27350, 0.31289>;
#declare v3=<123.66611, 65.86183, 12.58927>;
#declare n3=<-0.8777, -0.19526, 0.43849>;
smooth_triangle{
v1,n1,
v2,n2,
v3,n3
}
Thanks for any help.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
My understanding was that it was a duplicate triangle... in other words,
there is already one in the scene with the same co-ords. But I could be
wrong.
I think there was a thread about it a few months back... on how to get rid
of them...
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote:
>
> My understanding was that it was a duplicate triangle... in other words,
> there is already one in the scene with the same co-ords. But I could be
> wrong.
Well, I would believe this about duplicates except that POV is telling
me
that just that one triangle by itself is degenerate.
> I think there was a thread about it a few months back... on how to get rid
> of them...
Thanks. I will have to try and find it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmm, interesting... Maybe it's a problem with the computed normal for the
triangle.
Anyone else got any ideas?
"Ken will know"
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote:
>
> Hmm, interesting... Maybe it's a problem with the computed normal for the
> triangle.
> Anyone else got any ideas?
> "Ken will know"
It probably has something to do with the way it's parents raised it.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A degenerate triangle is usually one where at least two of the points
are the same (so you get a line or a point instead of a triangle).
This particular triangle works just fine with POV 3.1 for me.
If you accidently typed something like:
smooth_triangle{
v1,n1,
v2,n2,
v2,n3 // note this line
}
then it would be degenerate.
-Nathan
david sharp wrote:
>
> My understanding has been that a degenerate triangle is
> just three points that don't really make a triangle.
> Could someone please explain why POV-Ray complains that
> the following smooth_triangle is "degenerate"? (v1,v2, and v3
> come out fine as a plain 'flat' triangle).
>
> #declare v1=<116.50351, 37.28418, -14.46650>;
> #declare n1=<-0.87727, -0.19526, 0.43849>;
> #declare v2=<73.18535, 44.36221, -1.11751>;
> #declare n2=<-0.90956, 0.27350, 0.31289>;
> #declare v3=<123.66611, 65.86183, 12.58927>;
> #declare n3=<-0.8777, -0.19526, 0.43849>;
>
> smooth_triangle{
> v1,n1,
> v2,n2,
> v3,n3
> }
>
> Thanks for any help.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
he he he
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>> It probably has something to do with the way it's parents raised it.
It cross-dresses as a primitive. Looks kinda cute, actually <g>.
- Alan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nathan Kopp wrote:
[ ... ]
> This particular triangle works just fine with POV 3.1 for me.
As a smooth_triangle?
I am using 3.1d, DOS version, and that smooth_triangle is
reported degenerate. The points and normals are generated by
macros and if I at least knew why it was degenerate (or being
reported as such) I could do automate some 'detect and correct',
like substituting a 'flat' triangle (which works fine with
those coordinates).
> If you accidently typed something like:
> smooth_triangle{
> v1,n1,
> v2,n2,
> v2,n3 // note this line
> }
Well, in my case, this is actually the most likely cause,
but I cutnpasted directly from the source.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Using POV version 3.1d for DOS, this triangle is not
reported as degenerate as part of a mesh{}, but it
is reported degenerate if declared by itself or as
part of a union{}. However the triangle is not
rendered properly in any of these (in a mesh, by itself,
or in a union).
By making random changes in the normals, sometimes I can get
it rendered, but what changes in the normals is allowing it
to be rendered is a mystery to me. Some changes work, and
some don't.
If it is declared as a plain triangle
triangle{v1,v2,v3}
then it is rendered ok.
david sharp wrote:
> #declare v1=<116.50351, 37.28418, -14.46650>;
> #declare n1=<-0.87727, -0.19526, 0.43849>;
> #declare v2=<73.18535, 44.36221, -1.11751>;
> #declare n2=<-0.90956, 0.27350, 0.31289>;
> #declare v3=<123.66611, 65.86183, 12.58927>;
> #declare n3=<-0.8777, -0.19526, 0.43849>;
>
> smooth_triangle{
> v1,n1,
> v2,n2,
> v3,n3
> }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
