clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

> Then you must be using a different code than the one you posted. (Note
> that the posted code doesn't actually show the icosahedron at all, only
> the subdivided result.)

<banging head>
Looking the two over, that must be true.
I've been squeezing in new work and edits as I can, and it's been hot as blazes,
and I can see how I might have lost track of what got edited and fixed.  I
probably saw your correction and implemented it immediately afterwards as I was
coding the rest of the expansion macro.
Sorry. :O
I need better archiving and version control.

> It gives you the same set of vertices, but ordered differently, thus
> giving you a different set of triangles.

Yes, that makes sense.
That was a hard one to "see" and get ordered correctly without losing track.
I think I either need even _more_ practice at being able to see it all and keep
track of it in my head, or come up with a better way to rapidly visualize what I
need to do.  But this was definitely a valuable experiment.

> No, the smooth_triangles issue is also present in (smooth) meshes.

But to a far lesser extent?  Those few green pixels are present on the basis
array icosahedron.  The smooth_triangle objects have a LOT more green present
even in the first two subdivisions.  Only the third iteration seems to finally
get it smooth enough to be all red, since I guess the edges are finely divided
enough to overcome that effect.

Quite a nice demonstration of how simple it is to just instantiate a sphere{}
primitive and be done with!  ;)

Post a reply to this message