On Tue, 7 Aug 2001 12:10:58 +0200, Rune wrote:
>* The version for rounded surfaces work for rounded surfaces only, and give
>very little control.

True. The amount of faceting is directly related to the curvature of the 
surface, which leads to both limitations.

>* The version for flat surfaces work both for flat and rounded surfaces, but
>the illusion of depth is very bad, I think it looks more like a pigment than
>a normal, i.e. as if it is painted on the surface.

The version for flat surfaces could be replaced by some rethinking of the way
crackle solid works with normals; it's basically the same code.

>* The two different version of facets really have not very much to do with
>each other. It's almost as if it is two different workarounds.

Not "workarounds" exactly, but two different methods definitely.

>* The pattern is not really a pattern as it works for normals only, and with
>the rounded version you can't even scale it. (I know, this applies partly to
>the slope pattern too, but anyway.)

Actually, it scales with the object it's on, since it's based on curvature.
A big sphere will have exactly the same number of facets as a small one.

>So, what do you think? Isn't my idea both much more logical and useful than
>the current implementation? :)

I like it.  The combination of bumps and facets could be interesting;
it won't look like the current facets, but it will be unique.

-- 
plane{-z,-3normal{crackle scale.2#local a=5;#while(a)warp{repeat x flip x}rotate
z*60#local a=a-1;#end translate-9*x}pigment{rgb 1}}light_source{-9red 1rotate 60
*z}light_source{-9rgb y rotate-z*60}light_source{9-z*18rgb z}text{ttf"arial.ttf"
"RP".01,0translate-<.6,.4,.02>pigment{bozo}}light_source{-z*3rgb-.2}//Ron Parker

Post a reply to this message