|
 |
Hmm. It could be useful in some cases, and a little cumbersome in others.
Personnally I prefer having the trees not scaled and adjust the size using the
dummy bounding box: for instance, if you generate several trees just but changing
the random seed or the recursion level, you'll get trees of different sizes but
with a similar scale. If the trees were post-scaled, you'd get even-sized trees but
with actually different scales, so you would have to make trial-and-error scaling
to have trees consistent with each other. There's also the fact that the trees
don't exactly fit in a box. Some of them crawl, some shoot up, so there's no ideal
unit-size bounding box. In fact people who provide really good 3D trees also
provide the "real life" bounding box : see http://iris8.cirad.fr/index.htm and look
at the plant catalogue.
Now if you really want it, I can add it as an option.
Gilles
Spider wrote:
> hmm, this probably doesn't fit in this group, but should be in a separate mail
> to Giles. but then, hehe.
>
> To ease it all up with object placing and scalability, can you make the trees
> all downscaled(upscaled) to a bounding_box{<0,0,0>,<10,10,10>}. This would help
> a lot, and would also remove the need to recalculate the tree to fit.
>
> I have an automated rescaler #macro here somewhere, if you are interested...
>
> Lewis wrote:
> >
> > I had another weird idea:
> > Let's compile a library of trees, made with Giles macro. Using a macro
> > to generate random trees, each one starts it with a different seed and
> > sends in the results (the include files). It could be very useful. Maybe
> > someone will need a couple of trees sometime. Instead of parsing, say,
> > 100ds of them, he will just download them.
> > Anyone with me? If there will be enough enthusiasm I'll set up a web
> > site or somethin'.
>
> --
> //Spider
> [ spi### [at] bahnhof se ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
> What I can do and what I could do, I just don't know anymore
> "Marian"
> By: "Sisters Of Mercy"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
