 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I just had a real brainwave! Normally height fields by definition don't
allow overhangs. I realised you could work around this by STACKING height
fields. You have a main height field and then a height field on top for the
underside of any overhangs and then a third hf on top of that for the top of
the overhangs.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steven Jones wrote:
>
> I just had a real brainwave! Normally height fields by definition don't
> allow overhangs. I realised you could work around this by STACKING height
> fields. You have a main height field and then a height field on top for the
> underside of any overhangs and then a third hf on top of that for the top of
> the overhangs.
Old idea but a good reminder.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote in message news:3921C966.1F832996@pacbell.net...
{
{ Steven Jones wrote:
{ >
{ > I just had a real brainwave! Normally height fields by definition don't
{ > allow overhangs. I realised you could work around this by STACKING height
{ > fields. You have a main height field and then a height field on top for the
{ > underside of any overhangs and then a third hf on top of that for the top of
{ > the overhangs.
{
{ Old idea but a good reminder.
Yep, but that doesn't mean it didn't cause you a nice brainwave ;-)
(brainstorm, people usually call that)
Here's something similar:
http://www.digitalproducer.com/pages/caves_in_povray.htm
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steven Jones wrote:
> I just had a real brainwave! Normally height fields by definition don't
> allow overhangs. I realised you could work around this by STACKING height
> fields. You have a main height field and then a height field on top for the
> underside of any overhangs and then a third hf on top of that for the top of
> the overhangs.
Or you could just use isosurfaces
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I do remember that, but I always applaud someone who thinks of it without reading
it before hand.
I pissed off a lot of philosophy students that way.
Josh
Ken wrote:
> Steven Jones wrote:
> >
> > I just had a real brainwave! Normally height fields by definition don't
> > allow overhangs. I realised you could work around this by STACKING height
> > fields. You have a main height field and then a height field on top for the
> > underside of any overhangs and then a third hf on top of that for the top of
> > the overhangs.
>
> Old idea but a good reminder.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
--
Josh English
eng### [at] spiritonecom
"May your hopes, dreams, and plans not be destroyed by a few zeros."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Pabs wrote in message <392201B9.23523BA7@hotmail.com>...
>
>Or you could just use isosurfaces
>
The isosurface patch for Pov-Ray is very slow. Do you know of any programs
that convert isosurfaces into polygonal meshes. I've written terrain
algorithms for the patch and it is painfully slow waiting for the results.
- Eric poe### [at] hotmailcom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The reason I thought of it is I want to do an animation of Lara Croft rock
climbing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
