Ken wrote:
> 
> If you glue sand to the surface of a box, like the one used in your examples,
> as you scale the x & z directions the sand will be further apart but the
> relative height of the roughness on the surface will remain unchanged. Since
> we are talking surfaces here, if you glued sand to a thicker box, all you
> would have is sand with the same granular size on a larger box. It's surface
> roughness would remain unchanged. Therefore it is important to remember that
> scaling an object should not change the surface normals depth. It may change
> the slope and scale of the pattern but not it's physical depth.
> 
	I understand you reasoning, but I have to disagree: it has happened
several times to me that I had to scale my whole scene (otherwise some
parts of an object made in sPatch were so small that they disappeared (I
don't mean that they were too small to be seen, more like they were
optimized away...). In such a case, the normal depth should follow the
general scaling. It's the same thing as when you see a map at several
scales: the fact that the scale changes doesn't change the relative size
of the terrain features (and shouldn't).
	The reasoning you present here is the reason why I am undecided for
questions 4 and 6 (and I should have said the same thing for question 5
now that I think about it...)

		Jerome
-- 
*******************************

* they'll tell you what can't * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* be done and why...          * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
* Then do it.                 *
*******************************

Post a reply to this message