 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ian Burgmyer wrote:
> Personally, I don't even use half the features in POV (Plain Old POV), so
> POV 3.5, or even MegaPOV probably wouldn't do me much good :-)
But you still use a lot, no? Just because you don't use everything in one
doesn't mean the other can't be useful. Even with a modeller, you could get
some limited use out of MegaPOV from new texture options like conserve_energy
and variable reflection. As for hand-coding there's all the more, like
trace() and isosurface. Even with Plain Old POV, there's features like poly
and macro you can't access with a modeller.
> Until Moray supports it, that is. Heh heh heh!
Modellers are all good and fun, but they'll never be able to do things like
isosurface...
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricy net> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Until Moray supports it, that is. Heh heh heh!
>
> Modellers are all good and fun, but they'll never be able to do things
like
> isosurface...
if povray can evaluate an iso surface, i am very sure with some creative
programming a modeller could do the same - and dont forget, in a modelling
environment you not allways after the same level of precision as the final
render.
all we need if a mfc programmer who understand iso functions to write a
moray plugin :)
--
Rick
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://povray.co.uk
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://kitty5.com
Hi-Impact web site design & database driven e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
--
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rick [Kitty5] <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote:
: if povray can evaluate an iso surface, i am very sure with some creative
: programming a modeller could do the same
Raytracing an isosurface and creating a wireframe from an isosurface are
two different things.
Both are perfectly possible, though.
--
char*i="b[7FK@`3NB6>B:b3O6>:B:b3O6><`3:;8:6f733:>::b?7B>:>^B>C73;S1";
main(_,c,m){for(m=32;c=*i++-49;c&m?puts(""):m)for(_=(
c/4)&7;putchar(m),_--?m:(_=(1<<(c&3))-1,(m^=3)&3););} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Modellers are all good and fun, but they'll never be able to do things
> like
> > isosurface...
Doesn't Rhino3d use iso surfaces? I know it uses mathematical functions to
model surfaces. If not, what s the difference. What's the difference between
nurbs and iso surfaces?
Nekar
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Modellers are all good and fun, but they'll never be able to do things
like
> isosurface...
With a small plugin, MAX does, which proves "they'll never be able to do
things like isosurface..." wrong.
--
Lance.
http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
J-Print News wrote:
>
> Doesn't Rhino3d use iso surfaces? I know it uses mathematical functions to
> model surfaces. If not, what s the difference. What's the difference between
> nurbs and iso surfaces?
>
Rhino uses NURBS (non-uniform rational B-spline) surfaces. NURBS are
parametric surfaces, where surface is described by 2 additional
parametric values u and v. To put it bluntly, for NURBS surface there is
3 equations:
x = fx(u,v)
y = fy(u,v)
z = fz(u,v)
You run u and v values over given range (quite often it is from 0-1) and
calculate points (x,y,z) on surface.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote:
> With a small plugin, MAX does, which proves "they'll never be able to do
> things like isosurface..." wrong.
noooooooo ;)
isosurface in a (near) real-time GUI modeller? with any function you want?
wow
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3A6633BC.C00F0ACA@faricy.net> , David Fontaine
<dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:
> isosurface in a (near) real-time GUI modeller? with any function you want?
Isosurfaces in MegaPOV are very slow. There are ways to calculate them with
the same/better precision but more than ten times faster...
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>
> Isosurfaces in MegaPOV are very slow. There are ways to calculate them with
> the same/better precision but more than ten times faster...
>
Do i hear some plans for improvements, or is it just my hope for
accelerating those endless isosurface renders?
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:25:54 +0100, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
>
>Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>>
>> Isosurfaces in MegaPOV are very slow. There are ways to calculate them with
>> the same/better precision but more than ten times faster...
>>
>
>Do i hear some plans for improvements, or is it just my hope for
>accelerating those endless isosurface renders?
Yes, you either hear plans for improvements or it's your hope for
accelerating those endless isosurface renders. Or both.
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions. Mine. Not anyone else's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
