Ron Parker wrote:
> Depending on what sort of "automatic interpolation function" you're
> planning on, you might as well use the bicubic patches.  They're the
> end result you'd get with a bicubic interpolation, for example.
> Adaptive interpolation would certainly be nice, but if you're going
> to implement it, do it for all bicubic patches.

Well, I've never mucked around with the source code anyway, so that's
sort of out.

> >Or, even something as simple as more smoothing would do the
> >trick, at least in my case.
> 
> I don't think there's such a thing as "more smoothing."  It's either
> smooth or it isn't - the 'smooth' version doesn't actually displace
> any points; it just mucks with the normal vectors to make it look
> smoother.

Ah, but that's just what I mean: Those normal vectors can be displaced
even further, or less far, depending on the smoothness desired by the
user. There has to be a function which tells the smoothing algorithm how
much of one corner to use, how much of another corner, etc., and how
much of the plane normal. The way I see it, the big problem with my
scene is that the triangles don't use the edge/corner normal vectors
nearly enough, and instead use too much of the plane normal. Thus, the
triangles still have a somewhat "flat" appearance, except at their very
edges, when instead they should look flat only very close to the middle.
An altered "smooth" keyword would be key, here, so "smooth 1.0" could be
the default smooth function, whereas "smooth 5.0" would tend to perturb
the normals more in favor of the corners.

Lummox JR

Post a reply to this message