 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I am looking for a function to use in an isosurface that will give me
ripples that will decay to zero over a short distance.
Can anyone suggest one?
TIA
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> I am looking for a function to use in an isosurface that will give me
> ripples that will decay to zero over a short distance.
> Can anyone suggest one?
How about something like:
sin(a*x)*exp(-b*x^2)
Plot it, e.g., here for a quick preview:
http://rechneronline.de/function-graphs/
For more ripples over a given range, increase a
For a greater range, decrease b
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/04/2012 8:19 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> I am looking for a function to use in an isosurface that will give me
>> ripples that will decay to zero over a short distance.
>> Can anyone suggest one?
>
> How about something like:
>
> sin(a*x)*exp(-b*x^2)
>
> Plot it, e.g., here for a quick preview:
> http://rechneronline.de/function-graphs/
>
> For more ripples over a given range, increase a
> For a greater range, decrease b
>
> Bill
>
>
Ah! The exponential, just what I was looking for.
It is true that if you don't use it, you lose it.
Thanks Bill
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 23/04/2012 8:19 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> >> I am looking for a function to use in an isosurface that will give me
> >> ripples that will decay to zero over a short distance.
> >> Can anyone suggest one?
> >
> > How about something like:
> >
> > sin(a*x)*exp(-b*x^2)
> >
> > Plot it, e.g., here for a quick preview:
> > http://rechneronline.de/function-graphs/
> >
> > For more ripples over a given range, increase a
> > For a greater range, decrease b
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> Ah! The exponential, just what I was looking for.
> It is true that if you don't use it, you lose it.
Too true. I use it a little too much to be honest :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/04/2012 11:39 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> Ah! The exponential, just what I was looking for.
>> > It is true that if you don't use it, you lose it.
> Too true. I use it a little too much to be honest:)
>
>
>
In that case you could use your mathematical brain ;-) to tell me how to
translate the function below along the z axis. I used the formula that
you suggestion to create a ripple but for the life of me I cannot move
it from the origin. After reading the doc I substituted z-2 for z and
that did not work properly. I am at a loss.
(sqrt(exp(-0.5*x*x) *exp(-0.5*z*z) )) }
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.04.2012 16:09, schrieb Stephen:
> On 23/04/2012 11:39 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
>>> Ah! The exponential, just what I was looking for.
>>> > It is true that if you don't use it, you lose it.
>> Too true. I use it a little too much to be honest:)
>>
>>
>>
> In that case you could use your mathematical brain ;-) to tell me how to
> translate the function below along the z axis. I used the formula that
> you suggestion to create a ripple but for the life of me I cannot move
> it from the origin. After reading the doc I substituted z-2 for z and
> that did not work properly. I am at a loss.
>
> *exp(-0.5*z*z) )) }
Should have worked, maybe you missed a z somewhere.
The more robust approach is to leave your function as-is, and call it
from another function such as:
function { foo(x,y,z-2) }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/04/2012 3:30 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 23.04.2012 16:09, schrieb Stephen:
>> *exp(-0.5*z*z) )) }
>
> Should have worked, maybe you missed a z somewhere.
>
I had so many Zeds in it that I almost fell asleep. :-)
> The more robust approach is to leave your function as-is, and call it
> from another function such as:
>
> function { foo(x,y,z-2) }
That makes sense and it's a good idea.
Thanks
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 23/04/2012 3:30 PM, clipka wrote:
> > Am 23.04.2012 16:09, schrieb Stephen:
>
> >> *exp(-0.5*z*z) )) }
> >
> > Should have worked, maybe you missed a z somewhere.
> >
>
> I had so many Zeds in it that I almost fell asleep. :-)
>
> > The more robust approach is to leave your function as-is, and call it
> > from another function such as:
> >
> > function { foo(x,y,z-2) }
>
> That makes sense and it's a good idea.
Just what I was going to suggest. Mike Williams' isosurface page has lots of
useful tips, eg:
http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/isotut/substitute.htm
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/04/2012 3:57 PM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Just what I was going to suggest. Mike Williams' isosurface page has lots of
> useful tips, eg:
> http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/isotut/substitute.htm
I have been reading it but I missed that. :-(
For someone who just hacks code (in the original sense), it did not twig.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/04/2012 12:16 AM, Stephen wrote:
Thanks to both of you. I got what I was aiming for.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
