 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nekar Xenos <j-p### [at] citywalk coza> wrote:
: I'd like to see support for Mandelbrot and other complex and recursive functions
: in isosurfaces.
You can use a mandelbrot pattern in an isosurface.
However, recursive function calls will be disabled in 3.5 (don't ask me;
I was completely in favor of recursion).
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
for prism_item, an "helicoidal_sweep"...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
How about blob sweeps?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I would like to see "rotate_to," that is, a function similar to point_at
or look_at, that would allow you to simply take any object and rotate it
so that it faces a given vector. I know this can be done with macros,
but having the keyword would be so much more elegant...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dave Dunn <poi### [at] aolcom> wrote:
: I would like to see "rotate_to," that is, a function similar to point_at
: or look_at, that would allow you to simply take any object and rotate it
: so that it faces a given vector. I know this can be done with macros,
: but having the keyword would be so much more elegant...
Why it would be more elegant?
And FYI, this will be a standard macro in 3.5.
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Why it would be more elegant?
> And FYI, this will be a standard macro in 3.5.
To your second point first, this is great news. Not having seen the beta, like
a lot of other people, I can only guess what macros are included. I was
thinking of elegance in terms of simplicity of use for the end user, not in
the sense that programmers sometimes use it. It seemed to me that an internal
keyword, based on point_at or look_at would simply be more intuitive while
coding than having to invoke a macro. But hey, I'll take the macro, gladly. :
)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dave Dunn wrote:
>
> Warp wrote:
>
> > Why it would be more elegant?
> > And FYI, this will be a standard macro in 3.5.
>
> To your second point first, this is great news. Not having seen the beta, like
> a lot of other people, I can only guess what macros are included. I was
> thinking of elegance in terms of simplicity of use for the end user, not in
> the sense that programmers sometimes use it. It seemed to me that an internal
> keyword, based on point_at or look_at would simply be more intuitive while
> coding than having to invoke a macro. But hey, I'll take the macro, gladly. :
> )
The beauty of the standard macro collection is that you simply include the
file and the functions act just like built in keywords. They are basically
transparent to the user and offer the added benifit that if the function
does not work as you want it to you modify it until it does. That is
something you cannot do with built in features :)
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The beauty of the standard macro collection is that you simply include the
> file and the functions act just like built in keywords. They are basically
> transparent to the user and offer the added benifit that if the function
> does not work as you want it to you modify it until it does. That is
> something you cannot do with built in features :)
What about looking at the pov sources? POV script is easier to use than
C, so having macros makes more sense.
Brendan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> The beauty of the standard macro collection is that you simply include the
> file and the functions act just like built in keywords. They are basically
> transparent to the user and offer the added benifit that if the function
> does not work as you want it to you modify it until it does. That is
> something you cannot do with built in features :)
Okay, you've convinced me. Now that the Beta is out, I can see for myself. I had
overlooked the benefits of tweaking the existing macros, although I do it all the
time, heh heh. I guess where I was going is that, for something as simple as
rotate_to, you would save a whole keystroke typing "rotate_to <1,2,3>" over
RotateTo(<1,2,3>)... I'll go back to my dark corner and be quiet now.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dave Dunn wrote:
> Okay, you've convinced me. Now that the Beta is out, I can see for myself. I had
> overlooked the benefits of tweaking the existing macros, although I do it all the
> time, heh heh. I guess where I was going is that, for something as simple as
> rotate_to, you would save a whole keystroke typing "rotate_to <1,2,3>" over
> RotateTo(<1,2,3>)... I'll go back to my dark corner and be quiet now.
Don't get me wrong. It took me a while to buy into it as well. Once
I understood how flexible they were I shut up and excepted it too :)
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
