|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> - Two cylinders of different radii R_1 and R_2, intersecting each other
> (perpendicular and with intersecting axes, for starters), with a
> "melting" inset radius of R_i.
>
> - Three planes intersecting each others (perpendicular, for starters),
> with different radii for the "melting" insets between the pairs, R_i_1,
> R_i_2 and R_i_3. Of course the corner where the three planes meet is
> also expected to be smooth.
>
> This might give you a /basic/ idea of the fundamental challenges involved.
The above are both a piece of cake for CAD software (see images
attached) - but I hate to imagine the maths/algorithms behind this.
Hopefully the images backup the idea that this would be *hard* to do in
the general case.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'croppercapture[46].png' (96 KB)
Download 'croppercapture[47].png' (53 KB)
Preview of image 'croppercapture[46].png'
Preview of image 'croppercapture[47].png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, exactly. Well recognized what I talk about. A hell to develop, I am
sure, but hell needed, too. :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 22.12.2015 um 18:24 schrieb Sven Littkowski:
> Yes, exactly. Well recognized what I talk about. A hell to develop, I am
> sure, but hell needed, too. :-)
I think here's your fundamental problem:
- You experience something as a hell to get right.
- You ask others to do it for you, apparently expecting them to just
wave their magic wand and make it happen.
One of the hard facts of life: There's no fairy.
Wir kochen alle nur mit Wasser.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
True. But using water for our preparations, we're able to create such
amazing things like pies, cakes, cookies, soups (including the delicious
delicious Tom Kha Tai), Jamaican jerk pork, Jamaican chicken run down,
strange English plumpudding, German and international beer, fruit
juices, not so very healthy sodas (including the delicious ginger ale),
mashed potatoes, cooked rice, and so on.
But besides, your point is understood. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Yes, exactly. Well recognized what I talk about. A hell to develop, I am
> sure, but hell needed, too. :-)
Although there are some similarities between the way you build objects
(CSG) in POV and CAD, the way it works internally is very different. The
way POV does it is simply not suited to adding "rounds".
Take an example of subtracting a cylinder from a box, to get a box with
a hole through the middle:
In CAD, the software will first create a boundary representation (brep)
of the box. In the case of a box it's just six planes, each bounded by a
rectangle. Note the brep is not a triangle-mesh, but a list of bounded
mathematical surfaces that define the exterior surface of the solid
geometry exactly. Next, when you subtract the cylinder, the CAD software
will start with the box brep data and modify it to include the hole.
You'll end up with a longer list of curved surfaces and planes bounded
by curves and straight edges.
In POV, it literally just stores the box and cylinder, with a flag to
say the cylinder is subtracted. Nothing else is calculated or stored.
There is no concept of the "edge" between the two stored anywhere at
all. It's only when you come to raytrace the scene, pixel-by-pixel, that
the edge appears in the image.
Now consider how to add a round on this shape. In the CAD software it's
just a matter of choosing the edge from the ones in the brep, and
replacing it with a curved surface following that edge (and adding in
suitable boundaries for the other surfaces affected). In POV no such
edge exists, so you can't even choose where to apply the round! What you
would need to do, is write specific code for every possible combination
of shape intersections (sphere-sphere, sphere-cylinder, sphere-box,
box-cylinder, ...) AND handle every possible case where one of the
shapes is already bounded by another shape. That is *a lot* of maths and
*a lot* of combinations that need to be figured out and hand-coded. It
might not even be possible mathematically for some combinations.
The only feasible way for POV to be able to have this feature is for it
to follow the CAD way of doing things and keep a brep of the shape. But
this would be a gigantic undertaking from the way shapes are defined and
stored, the way CSG is calculated, and how the raytracing intersections
are done. IMHO it would then be a different piece of software rather
than an "update" or "patch".
BTW there are free CAD packages available that do what you want, eg:
http://www.freecadweb.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, point taken. I wished, POV-Ray could export scenes (as meshes) into
the formats of other raytracers, so I could create the rounded edges
there as meshes and export them back into a mesh that POV-Ray understands.
Beside the Bishop modeller, are there other programs that can understand
the POV-Ray format of pre-defined shapes?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Beside the Bishop modeller, are there other programs that can understand
> the POV-Ray format of pre-defined shapes?
I'm not aware of any other software that can directly read a POV SDL file.
Your best bet is to use a 3D modeller or CAD package to design your
complex shapes with rounds, then export as a mesh to render in POV.
Or, if you are using simple shapes, create the geometry for the rounds
manually yourself in POV. It's a good exercise in maths, geometry and
CSG :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, I could easily do that, where there is a 90° angle where they hit
each other. But at one location, it is a torus. There I would fail. :-)
Besides, I achieved my wish with the blob I have created. Wasn't been
easy, but it is good enough now.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 15-12-23 04:51, Sven Littkowski a écrit :
> Yes, point taken. I wished, POV-Ray could export scenes (as meshes) into
> the formats of other raytracers, so I could create the rounded edges
> there as meshes and export them back into a mesh that POV-Ray understands.
>
> Beside the Bishop modeller, are there other programs that can understand
> the POV-Ray format of pre-defined shapes?
>
I recently looked at the list of the include files and stumbled on the
Meshmaker.inc file.
Some macros from that include have the option to export as .OBJ and .PCM
files. Those can't be read back by POV-Ray, but can be used by other
packages.
Those are:
BuildWriteMesh2()
Prism1()
Lathe()
Coons()
The type of objects they can generate is quite limited, but can probably
simulate most primitives with some work.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks, Alain. This is one more helpful and good advise I saw from you. :-)
And merry Christmas.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|