|
 |
SharkD <mik### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Reactor wrote:
> > Also, isn't that the first derivative (i.e. slope), not the second? The
> > function is roughly analogous to what you would want to do with, say, the
> > surface normal of the object (i.e. measure the normal's rate of change), or the
> > values that are returned from the slope pattern.
> >
> > If you use this directly as a pigment, you should clip it between 0 and 1.
> > Personally, I would also probably rotate the image and evaluate in the xz plane
> > because it is easier for me to think of, but either way will work.
> >
> >
> > -Reactor
>
>
> There are unfortunately some weird striations in the resulting image:
>
> http://i421.photobucket.com/albums/pp292/SharkD2161/Support/hf_striations.png
>
> At least I can *see* something. :)
>
> -Mike
The striations are do to the values going outside of the 0...1 range. It can be
clipped using min() and max().
Are you using the change in slope to decide where to place objects? I've been
working on a macro for that, trying to get it to decide where to place rocks
for stream beds. It works ok, but I think it needs to average the normals in a
small radius for each point to get a more accurate test of concavity.
-Reactor
Post a reply to this message
|
|
