 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From the MegaHelp:
"The facets texture is designed to be used as a normal. Like bumps or
wrinkles, it is not suitable for use as a pigment. .."
"Not suitable", does this also mean it can't be used as a pigment?
If I try, WinMegaPov gives a rendering error: problem in Evaluate_TPat.
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <8ED7C9C44seed7@204.213.191.228>, ing### [at] home nl (ingo)
wrote:
> From the MegaHelp:
> "The facets texture is designed to be used as a normal. Like bumps or
> wrinkles, it is not suitable for use as a pigment. .."
>
> "Not suitable", does this also mean it can't be used as a pigment?
> If I try, WinMegaPov gives a rendering error: problem in Evaluate_TPat.
Hmm, bumps just behaves like bozo when used in a pigment, and I often
use wrinkles as a pigment.
But facets is not defined as an ordinary pattern, the function
Evaluate_TPat() doesn't know what to do with it when it gets that type.
It is handled in the surface normal code instead. I don't know how it
could be used as a pigment or anything else other than a normal...maybe
it could return a value between 0 and 1 depending on the angle between
the normal perturbed with "facets" and the actual normal, but it
wouldn't look like facets. The crackle pattern with "solid" turned on(or
the blotches pattern) is more useful for that.
I think it should be defined in some way for pigments though, or at
least have a parse-time error generated when someone tries to use it in
this way.
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 15:46:30 -0500, Chris Huff wrote:
>I think it should be defined in some way for pigments though, or at
>least have a parse-time error generated when someone tries to use it in
>this way.
Personally, I think facets should be nuked and replaced by a crackle
warp that warps all points in a voronoi region to the location of the
centroid of that region. It wouldn't be a complete replacement, because
the facets normal pattern isn't even like other normal patterns, but
I think you could get similar results for most objects without the
scalability problems facets has (A given facets normal will make bigger
facets in areas of low curvature and smaller facets in areas of higher
curvature, so the same pattern applied to spheres of different sizes
gives different facets. Applied to a blob, it gives varying sizes of
facets over the same object.)
--
These are my opinions. I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <slr### [at] rongwmicrocom>,
ron### [at] povrayorg wrote:
> Personally, I think facets should be nuked and replaced by a crackle
> warp that warps all points in a voronoi region to the location of the
> centroid of that region.
Sounds interesting, and probably a good idea. The facets pattern just
isn't very useful due to it's dependance on the variations of the
normal...
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
