In article <392017A4.A16E98B6@mitre.org>, xan### [at] mitreorg wrote:

> Why on earth would you want to use an Isosurface when the guy asked for
> a paraboloid? 

Ease of use(you can use the equation directly, instead of typing in a 
bunch of coefficients), more flexibility if it ever needs to be more 
than a plain paraboloid.


> The built in quadrics will suffice (and be a tad faster to boot).

They might be faster...but maybe not. This is a pretty simple equation, 
and remember that isosurface superellipsoids often render faster than 
the superellipsoid primitive. The quadric primitive might be similar.

-- 
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly wrote:
> 
> I'm looking for 3d functions and images of the results of those functions -
> anyone know a good link?
> 
> The sort of thing I'm after is z = x^2 + y^2

Some of these might help...

http://www.multimania.com/artphil/

http://members.aol.com/stbenge/iso_shapes/iso_shapelib.html

http://www.uib.no/People/nfytn/mathgal.htm

http://www.3dvue.net/doc/objets.htm

http://www.ipfw.edu/math/Coffman/steinersurface.html

-- 
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

see also: http://www.swin.edu.au/astronomy/pbourke/

-- 
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message