David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:
: BTW, this FAQ also talks about non-uniform transformations, saying they are only
: possible in mesh modellers by moving the vertexes. Indded they are quite
: possible in MegaPOV isosurfaces.

  Firstly: You can't modify an arbitrary object with an isosurface.

  Secondly: Yes, you can modify an isosurface function with another function.
But is this really a transformation? When you modify a function with another
function, you just create a third function. There are no specific
transformations involved.
  Yes, you can, for example, convert a cylinder-shaped isosurface into a
cone-shaped isosurface. This is, however, done by actually creating another
function, not by transforming.
  Of course it is possible to think that any transformations are possible
for an isosurface if you like.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:
: Free and easy! Just change some jumpers on the motherboard... :)

  I think that if you try to make your computer 5 times faster by overclocking
(and notice that it's not enough to se the MHz amount 5 times larger for
this), you will fry your CPU.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Chris Huff wrote:
> 
> In article <399311B7.AAB467A0@yahoo.com>, ryan constantine
> <rco### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> 
> > there is a solution for this right?  getting a computer that is 5X
> > faster :)
> 
> But that costs more than a POV upgrade. :-)

For the user, yes.  Doesn't cost the POV-Team a dime.

Post a reply to this message

On 11 Aug 2000 05:20:24 -0400, Warp wrote:
>David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:
>: Free and easy! Just change some jumpers on the motherboard... :)
>
>  I think that if you try to make your computer 5 times faster by overclocking
>(and notice that it's not enough to se the MHz amount 5 times larger for
>this), you will fry your CPU.

That depends on where you started.  If I'd started with my K6/233 at 50 MHz,
then decided to overclock to five times that, it'd probably work (but it'd
run hot... my K6 is the last .35u K6 made, for just that reason.)

-- 
Ron Parker   http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions.  Mine.  Not anyone else's.

Post a reply to this message

In article <39935BE7.AB4FF0BB@hotmail.com>, Pabs <pab### [at] hotmailcom> 
wrote:

> There is a link to a POV patch (over v2.2) that does this in
> http://povray.org/links/3D_Programs/POV-Ray_Unofficial_Patches_and_Front_E
> nd_Programs/POV-Ray_Patches_v2_2/

Ok, I will have to expand the requirements: full simulation of frequency 
shifting(Doppler effect), taking gravitational effects into account, etc.

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

Post a reply to this message

In article <3993c4bd@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> 
wrote:

> But is this really a transformation? When you modify a function with 
> another function, you just create a third function. There are no 
> specific transformations involved.
>   Yes, you can, for example, convert a cylinder-shaped isosurface into a
> cone-shaped isosurface. This is, however, done by actually creating 
> another function, not by transforming.

You can use a function as a pattern in a pigment, use a warp(a 
non-uniform transform) on that pigment, and then use that pigment in the 
function for the final isosurface.

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

Post a reply to this message

In article <399377e1@news.povray.org>, "Nathan Kopp" <Nat### [at] Koppcom> 
wrote:

> Ooooh... sounds like fun.  :-)  (Yes, I've seen the animations from the
> renderer that already does this.)

Animations? All I saw were stills...but that was a while ago, maybe the 
animations were added since then.


> >  - Custom BDRF functions
> 
> Actually, this shouldn't be too far off as a MegaPov feature.  (of course,
> post-3.5)

How would it be implemented? The only thing I can think of is a set of 
splines specifying diffuse, specular reflection, etc. for the different 
angles and overriding the ordinary finish settings. Basically, a new 
finish model.
Of course, it would help if I knew something about BDRF functions. :-)
My knowledge of them is currently similar to my knowledge of shaders: I 
know what they do, but I don't know the specifics of what they are like.

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

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
> David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:
> : BTW, this FAQ also talks about non-uniform transformations, saying they are only
> : possible in mesh modellers by moving the vertexes. Indded they are quite
> : possible in MegaPOV isosurfaces.
> 
>   Firstly: You can't modify an arbitrary object with an isosurface.

Wouldn't the proximity pattern allow such a thing?
OK, I know, it's not possible to give an example before 2050 because of
rendering times...

      __  __ __  __  _
|  | /  \  /  / |_  /  |/
\/\/ \__/ /_ /_ |__ \_ |\

Post a reply to this message

In article <39945B44.5BBE192C@club-internet.fr>, Francois Dispot 
<woz### [at] club-internetfr> wrote:

> Wouldn't the proximity pattern allow such a thing?
> OK, I know, it's not possible to give an example before 2050 because of
> rendering times...

The granularity would be a problem...but I am thinking of a way to add 
per-object proximity functions, so some objects could have their own, 
much computationally cheaper way of calculating proximity. The proximity 
pattern might become useful in isosurfaces then...
My blob pattern isn't limited to blob components, it can also use boxes, 
pigments, and other components are planned(torus, superellipsoid, etc.). 
I have had good results with using it in isosurfaces.

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

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Firstly: You can't modify an arbitrary object with an isosurface.

No. But with enough highly complicated pain-in-the-ass slow-calculating functions
almost any object can be translated into an isosurface...

>   Secondly: Yes, you can modify an isosurface function with another function.
> But is this really a transformation? When you modify a function with another
> function, you just create a third function. There are no specific
> transformations involved.
>   Yes, you can, for example, convert a cylinder-shaped isosurface into a
> cone-shaped isosurface. This is, however, done by actually creating another
> function, not by transforming.
>   Of course it is possible to think that any transformations are possible
> for an isosurface if you like.

But isn't that the same thing? I mean, you could create a cylinder in POV and
transform it and really have POV be finding a new function, and get the same result.

--
David Fontaine     <dav### [at] faricynet>     ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

Post a reply to this message