I agree with TonyB.

It is my understanding that bump_size has a single vector that scales the bumps
the same amount in x, y & z vectors.

Shouldn't the bump_size have x, y & z vectors - or does it already?

- Tony


Nathan Kopp wrote:

> TonyB <ben### [at] panamaphoenixnet> wrote...
> > *If you scale the object (uniformly), all the attributes of the object
> > should look the same, ie: you zoom out the appropriate ammount, and it
> looks
> > the same.
> > *If you scale the normal (uniformly), the normal should scale, but the
> depth
> > remain the same. To control depth, use bump_size.
> > *If you scale the object (non-uniformly), all the attributes of the object
> > should fit in the same space as before scaling, ie: like if they were
> pasted
> > to it and squished or stretched with it.
> > *If you scale the normal (non-uniformly), the normal should squish or
> > stretch, with the depth remaining the same. Again, to control depth, use
> > bump_size.
>
> This would be very difficult to implement in the existing code.  I do hope
> that this is not the rule-set that is agreed upon.  But I do see your logic
> and agree at least somewhat.  ;-)
>
> > 6) None of the above. Here, it should stretch in the y direction, but the
> > depth should remain the same.
>
> The top of the box has a normal of 'y' so stretching it in the Y direction
> should leave it
> the same (well, maybe the pattern changes a bit).
>
> -Nathan

Post a reply to this message