Nieminen Juha wrote:
>  What are the advantages of NURBS (or should I say NURBSes?) over bicubic
>pathces?
>
>--
>main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
>):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
>

I am not sure where this should be posted because this thread has taken a
number of turns.

NURBS have an advantage of being used in a number of good programs.
(Rhino3D)

If NURBS are to be added to POVRay I thank thay should be rendered directly
like the other primitives. Bicubic patches seem odd in that they are not
rendered directly.  They have a problem of showing gapes and holes because
of this. POVRay is strong because it uses objects based on math. NURBS can
be rendered directly and would produce very detailed results.


I am not sure how this will be taken but some objects like NURBS could be
external objects included like images and rendered. This could also be used
with other formats like 3DS and LWO.

#declareEXTOBJ MYLWO =  "My object.lwo";

#MYLWO{translate x*10}

For NURBS this could be done useing the openNURBS provided by Rhino3D

Sub-Parts could be accessed like properties in object oriented programming
or like the color components of a pigment used in a function.

#MY3DM.wheel.texture = MY_POV_TEXTURE;

Not sure how that would work but the idea should be simple.

As for which is better between SubDivision and NURBS I really think they
each have their uses. Sometimes it is hard to model with subdivision
somthing that NURBS does easy. It goes the other way also.

Am I way out for POVRay here?

Post a reply to this message