|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 17.12.2010 05:17, schrieb Solar Mike:
>
http://s1223.photobucket.com/albums/dd507/solarmike1/?action=view¤t=testIntersect.png
>
> I would have expected the wood texture on both the difference and the
> intersection. Any thoughts as to how I can re-work this?
I'd expect the same as you do.
What happens when you add the "inverse" keyword to the cutter() union?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 17.12.2010 05:17, schrieb Solar Mike:
> >
http://s1223.photobucket.com/albums/dd507/solarmike1/?action=view¤t=testIntersect.png
> >
> > I would have expected the wood texture on both the difference and the
> > intersection. Any thoughts as to how I can re-work this?
>
> I'd expect the same as you do.
> What happens when you add the "inverse" keyword to the cutter() union?
I have tried playing around with that. If I use the inverse and then difference
I get the same result. I will also loose the texture if I only have a single
cylinder in the union. Removing the union from that will restore the texture
but I'm after a slightly more complicated "cutter."
I also tried adding an interior_texture without success.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 17.12.2010 15:53, schrieb Solar Mike:
> clipka<ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 17.12.2010 05:17, schrieb Solar Mike:
>>>
http://s1223.photobucket.com/albums/dd507/solarmike1/?action=view¤t=testIntersect.png
>>>
>>> I would have expected the wood texture on both the difference and the
>>> intersection. Any thoughts as to how I can re-work this?
>>
>> I'd expect the same as you do.
>> What happens when you add the "inverse" keyword to the cutter() union?
>
> I have tried playing around with that. If I use the inverse and then difference
> I get the same result. I will also loose the texture if I only have a single
> cylinder in the union. Removing the union from that will restore the texture
> but I'm after a slightly more complicated "cutter."
>
> I also tried adding an interior_texture without success.
What happens if you put "cutaway_textures" into the union?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/17/2010 09:18 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 17.12.2010 15:53, schrieb Solar Mike:
>> clipka<ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>> Am 17.12.2010 05:17, schrieb Solar Mike:
>>>>
http://s1223.photobucket.com/albums/dd507/solarmike1/?action=view¤t=testIntersect.png
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would have expected the wood texture on both the difference and the
>>>> intersection. Any thoughts as to how I can re-work this?
>>>
>>> I'd expect the same as you do.
>>> What happens when you add the "inverse" keyword to the cutter() union?
>>
>> I have tried playing around with that. If I use the inverse and then
>> difference
>> I get the same result. I will also loose the texture if I only have a
>> single
>> cylinder in the union. Removing the union from that will restore the
>> texture
>> but I'm after a slightly more complicated "cutter."
>>
>> I also tried adding an interior_texture without success.
>
> What happens if you put "cutaway_textures" into the union?
could this be the same behavior that was covered in this tag:
http://bugs.povray.org/task/115
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 18.12.2010 02:59, schrieb Jim Holsenback:
> could this be the same behavior that was covered in this tag:
> http://bugs.povray.org/task/115
No, it's actually just the opposite. Though they're closely related.
Gee, this cutaway thing is more complicated than I was just thinking.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 18.12.2010 02:59, schrieb Jim Holsenback:
>
> > could this be the same behavior that was covered in this tag:
> > http://bugs.povray.org/task/115
>
> No, it's actually just the opposite. Though they're closely related.
>
> Gee, this cutaway thing is more complicated than I was just thinking.
I had a look at task115 and I found that I could get correct rendering if I
moved the final application of orange to the difference only (the walls.) I
think that the orange may have been applied to the fillet since no texture was
explicitly applied to it and the orange was applied to the entire final union.
Interestingly, I would have expected the orange to override all the textures in
the final union but I guess that is not the case!
I'm still not sure how to work around the problem I am having. :/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> clipka<ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 18.12.2010 02:59, schrieb Jim Holsenback:
>>
>>> could this be the same behavior that was covered in this tag:
>>> http://bugs.povray.org/task/115
>>
>> No, it's actually just the opposite. Though they're closely related.
>>
>> Gee, this cutaway thing is more complicated than I was just thinking.
>
> I had a look at task115 and I found that I could get correct rendering if I
> moved the final application of orange to the difference only (the walls.) I
> think that the orange may have been applied to the fillet since no texture was
> explicitly applied to it and the orange was applied to the entire final union.
> Interestingly, I would have expected the orange to override all the textures in
> the final union but I guess that is not the case!
>
> I'm still not sure how to work around the problem I am having. :/
>
>
Whenever you provide an overall texture to any CSG, it apply only to
whatever component don't have any individual texture.
Whatever texture is applied to a component always override any "global"
texture.
cutaway_textures is suposed to return the texture of the cut object,
and, if you have 2 or more objects overlaping, the result is the average
of the individual textures.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
> > clipka<ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> >> Am 18.12.2010 02:59, schrieb Jim Holsenback:
> >>
> >>> could this be the same behavior that was covered in this tag:
> >>> http://bugs.povray.org/task/115
> >>
> >> No, it's actually just the opposite. Though they're closely related.
> >>
> >> Gee, this cutaway thing is more complicated than I was just thinking.
> >
> > I had a look at task115 and I found that I could get correct rendering if I
> > moved the final application of orange to the difference only (the walls.) I
> > think that the orange may have been applied to the fillet since no texture was
> > explicitly applied to it and the orange was applied to the entire final union.
> > Interestingly, I would have expected the orange to override all the textures in
> > the final union but I guess that is not the case!
> >
> > I'm still not sure how to work around the problem I am having. :/
> >
> >
>
> Whenever you provide an overall texture to any CSG, it apply only to
> whatever component don't have any individual texture.
>
> Whatever texture is applied to a component always override any "global"
> texture.
>
> cutaway_textures is suposed to return the texture of the cut object,
> and, if you have 2 or more objects overlaping, the result is the average
> of the individual textures.
>
>
>
> Alain
Thanks. That makes sense to me.
Should I be filing a bug report or something for my original problem (an
intersection with a union does not show the cutaway textures?) I have not yet
found a reasonable workaround.
Cheers,
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 21.12.2010 04:17, schrieb Solar Mike:
> Should I be filing a bug report or something for my original problem (an
> intersection with a union does not show the cutaway textures?) I have not yet
> found a reasonable workaround.
A report has already been filed. See http://bugs.povray.org/task/183.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 21.12.2010 04:17, schrieb Solar Mike:
>
> > Should I be filing a bug report or something for my original problem (an
> > intersection with a union does not show the cutaway textures?) I have not yet
> > found a reasonable workaround.
>
> A report has already been filed. See http://bugs.povray.org/task/183.
Thanks! :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |