 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15 Jul 2002 14:43:40 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
> Please don't tell me you are using a variable-width font to write and read
> news.
Not to read no, but apparently to send. I use Opera and it has some quirks
I would like to beat out of it, but since I do my web comic reading, news groups
and the rest all in one shot from in it I have been reluctant to install another
program just to use it. Also my copy of MS LookOut has bugged and crashes
on POP3 accounts. Why it still works with the html hotmail I can't comprehend,
but...
In any case I didn't realize it was doing that. I'll see what if anything I can do
to fix it. :p
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3d340ef3$1@news.povray.org>,
"TinCanMan" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I don't think that simple primitives have the solution. There must be some
> way of creating quadratic type surfaces without having a discrete mesh.
> Perhaps isosurfaces could be accomodated, but I would think that would come
> at great CPU expense.
Why try so hard to avoid using a triangle mesh? Any method you find will
probably be much more CPU hungry and have artifacts that are harder to
get rid of than faceting. The reason originally given for "curved smooth
triangles" was the dark artifact seen when the normal points away from
the camera, but there are other possible ways to fix that with flat
smooth triangles.
It seems like the best solution for curved triangles would be a cubic
surface tesselated into triangles, something like a triangular bezier
patch. It could even be tesselated on the fly to reduce memory
requirements.
Maybe subdivision surfaces would be a better solution.
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Why try so hard to avoid using a triangle mesh? Any method you find will
> probably be much more CPU hungry and have artifacts that are harder to
> get rid of than faceting. The reason originally given for "curved smooth
> triangles" was the dark artifact seen when the normal points away from
> the camera, but there are other possible ways to fix that with flat
> smooth triangles.
> It seems like the best solution for curved triangles would be a cubic
> surface tesselated into triangles, something like a triangular bezier
> patch. It could even be tesselated on the fly to reduce memory
> requirements.
>
> Maybe subdivision surfaces would be a better solution.
I think another reason was that if not enough triangles are used, in
profile, the shape has a jagged edge rather than a smooth one. Even though
the shading is smooth, the outline still follows the polygons.
-tgq
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3d35a378$1@news.povray.org>,
"TinCanMan" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I think another reason was that if not enough triangles are used, in
> profile, the shape has a jagged edge rather than a smooth one. Even though
> the shading is smooth, the outline still follows the polygons.
Still not a reason to avoid triangles altogether...if you use a
tesselated surface for the "curved triangles", you could still get the
straight edges small enough you can't tell the edge isn't really curved.
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 12:13:21 -0500, Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> In article <3d35a378$1@news.povray.org>,
> "TinCanMan" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
> > I think another reason was that if not enough triangles are used, in
> > profile, the shape has a jagged edge rather than a smooth one. Even though
> > the shading is smooth, the outline still follows the polygons.
>
> Still not a reason to avoid triangles altogether...if you use a
> tesselated surface for the "curved triangles", you could still get the
> straight edges small enough you can't tell the edge isn't really curved.
>
Only with an extraordinary number of triangles, and if you are using someone elses
model...
But yeah, if POV could be made aware of when such artifacts where visible and
automatically tessalated those surfaces sufficiently to erase the jagged surfaces,
that would
be nice. The problem is that no program I know of does and not everyone can photoshop
them
away without making things worse. The dark artifacts 'may' be fixed with the right
changes,
but squarish 'curves' will only be solved by either replacing them with something that
can
be CSGed, further tessalation or some alternate solution. In general, the equation is:
Realism = Primatives Used / (Meshes / Complexity) and in that equation even one mesh
no
matter how complex 'will' effect the overall realism, at least until you have the
resources and
time of companies like Dreamworks and can make the complexity so high that the result
of the bottom half becomes 0.xxxx. I doubt most of us have those kinds of resources.
Neadless to say a better solution is definitely needed. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <1103_1026930387@news.povray.org>,
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rrazcom> wrote:
> Only with an extraordinary number of triangles, and if you are using someone
> elses model...
The tesselation could be done at render time without too much drop in
speed, and the number of triangles wouldn't be so "extraordinary". And
it could work with any mesh, I don't know where you got the "someone
elses model" limitation.
> But yeah, if POV could be made aware of when such artifacts where
> visible and automatically tessalated those surfaces sufficiently to
> erase the jagged surfaces, that would be nice. The problem is that no
> program I know of does and not everyone can photoshop them away
> without making things worse.
I don't think it is such a problem...just increase the amount of
tessellation for triangles with a high curvature and "convex" triangles
where the normal for a flat triangle with the same points would be at a
high angle to the incoming ray. Maybe also adjust the tesselation
fineness across the triangle. There might be trouble with "tearing" or
"cracks", but there might be a way to prevent that, and it might not be
a big problem.
> The dark artifacts 'may' be fixed with the right changes, but
> squarish 'curves' will only be solved by either replacing them with
> something that can be CSGed, further tessalation or some alternate
> solution.
If you are using a mesh anyway, further tesselation seems like a perfect
solution.
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
BTW, your Followup-To header seems to be scrambled somehow...it says
"chr### [at] netplexaussieorg" in that message for
some reason. It seems messed up in other messages of yours as well. At
least, MT-NewsWatcher chokes on it when I try to reply to one of your
messages, I have to manually change the Newsgroups header to the correct
group.
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff wrote:
> Maybe subdivision surfaces would be a better solution.
No way this is gonna go unnoticed from my eyes :)
I'm all for subdivision surfaces. Just to think that I could just export a
lowpoly mesh from Wings3D and POV would subdivide it for me (The UVs as
well).
I hope some able programmer wants to see POV do this and not just me :)
--
-Jide
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:17:46 -0500, Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> BTW, your Followup-To header seems to be scrambled somehow...it says
> "chr### [at] netplexaussieorg" in that message for
> some reason. It seems messed up in other messages of yours as well. At
> least, MT-NewsWatcher chokes on it when I try to reply to one of your
> messages, I have to manually change the Newsgroups header to the correct
> group.
Yeah. I know. The problem is that I am using Opera and have to manually edit the
stupid
follow-up field to get it to post in the right thread (or any thread but a new one). I
have asked
for advice from someone else as to which of the various bits and pieces of the message
header that I need to fix it, but no one has given me a good answer... :p Opera just
won't
do it correctly, my version of Outlook is bugged (crashes on POP3 accounts, but not
hotmail's
html... figure that one out... lol) and I am reluctant to install still another
program on my comp
that may not work any better. :p I figured out that using the message ID correctly
posted it to
the thread, but... Do I use the xref field instead or something else? I just have no
clue and
people I have asked don't seem to know either or want to enlighten me...
Frankly I like being able to click on a custom html menu I made to go straight to the
POV
forums as well as ones for another program, several comics, etc., but there are a lot
of things I
hate about Opera's email/news, including the fact that it insists on posting using a
proportional
font, and reading in a fixed one. A 'feature' that also can't apparently be fix this
either. :p
It would almost be easier to write one as an COM program and call it through a
Javascript link
on my menu. lol But then I would still have to know what is actually broken in Opera.
lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] rrazcom> wrote in message
news:1103_1026511141@news.povray.org...
> > Check out my curvetri.inc, posted in p.b.s-f (I think :)
> >
> > ....Chambers
> >
>
> Been thinking about this... This idea may be very mathimatically
intensive, but lets say you did
> the folowing... Use the three points on the triangle and there
relationship to the normal provided
> (assuming you can) and find an area of a real sphere defined by those
points and with same
> real curvature, then use the math for generating spheres to produce those
points within the
> that triangle. This assumes you can calculate based on those point and a
curve what the radius
> would need to be for the sphere, but would in theory produce a true curve,
without the need to
> tessilate the object further. I haven't a clue how myself, but
geometrically it should work. Or so
> I assume...
That was similar to the first way I tried. Except, I tried blending between
three different spheres, defined by each point and it's normal :) Didn't
work too well, though :(
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
