 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Up until recently, I'd always got my multi-ridge code "wrong", in that I had
passed (x,y,z) to it, not (x,0,z).
The thing is, this never seemed to cause any noticable problems, discontinuous
floating bits, etc. I don't even recall seeing such artifacts when tweaking
params - how come?
--
#macro A(V,B,C,R)#while(B-256)#if(V-128/B>=0)sphere{0,.5translate<C-4R-1,9>
pigment{rgb<1-C/8R/2C/8>}}#local V=V-128/B;#end#local B=B*2;#local C=C+1;#
end#end A(234,1,0,2)A(85,1,0,1)A(81,1,0,0)light_source{-5 1}//Tom Melly
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3da691d7$1@news.povray.org>,
"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlu couk> wrote:
> The thing is, this never seemed to cause any noticable problems, discontinuous
> floating bits, etc. I don't even recall seeing such artifacts when tweaking
> params - how come?
It isn't really wrong, just sometimes causes problems that are hard to
avoid. Setting y to a constant value makes it impossible to have
overhangs or perfectly vertical surfaces, which you might want. Setting
it to y makes "floaters" possible, not inevitable.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff wrote:
> Setting it to y makes "floaters" possible, not inevitable.
And we all know how embarrassing they can be....
--
Rick
Kitty5 NewMedia http://Kitty5.co.uk
POV-Ray News & Resources http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.401 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 09/10/2002
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3da7ed06$2@news.povray.org>,
"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote:
> And we all know how embarrassing they can be....
Embarassing? Huh?
Annoying, yes...but even if you don't notice them in a landscape and
someone else does, I don't understand why it would be very embarassing.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff wrote:
> It isn't really wrong, just sometimes causes problems that are hard to
> avoid. Setting y to a constant value makes it impossible to have
> overhangs or perfectly vertical surfaces, which you might want. Setting
> it to y makes "floaters" possible, not inevitable.
Yep. IMHO giving y a non-constant value results usually in much more
realistic-looking landscape. Multiplying y with a small enough constant
gets rid of most, if not all, floaters, while keeping the overhangs and
staying overall "not-height_fieldy" ;). Something like <x,y/4,z> should
work fine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3da9c46d@news.povray.org>,
Johannes Dahlstrom <sad### [at] tkukoulufi> wrote:
> Yep. IMHO giving y a non-constant value results usually in much more
> realistic-looking landscape.
Unless you are doing a sheer cliff. ;-)
> Multiplying y with a small enough constant gets rid of most, if not
> all, floaters, while keeping the overhangs and staying overall
> "not-height_fieldy" ;). Something like <x,y/4,z> should work fine.
Raising the vertical gradient would work similarly..."y*4 + noise()"
should be pretty close to "y + noise()/4".
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christopher James Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:chr### [at] netplexaussieorg...
> > Multiplying y with a small enough constant gets rid of most, if not
> > all, floaters, while keeping the overhangs and staying overall
> > "not-height_fieldy" ;). Something like <x,y/4,z> should work fine.
>
> Raising the vertical gradient would work similarly..."y*4 + noise()"
> should be pretty close to "y + noise()/4".
I don't think so. In the first case, your surface will be displaced by a
full unit, (but it will reach the threshold at another position. In the
second version, the plane will be displaced by only 1/4 of a unit.
Is this wrong?
Marc-Hendrik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3dabcf2d@news.povray.org>,
"Marc-Hendrik Bremer" <Mar### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> I don't think so. In the first case, your surface will be displaced by a
> full unit, (but it will reach the threshold at another position. In the
> second version, the plane will be displaced by only 1/4 of a unit.
> Is this wrong?
Uh, I don't know what I was thinking...blame it on a cold I had.
Sorry.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
