|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Not normals exactly but displacement mapping is something that does that.
The 'function' in isosurfaces can do it. No idea why the normal statement
is not considered for such a thing as "deform" or displacement as you say;
makes sense to me. Probably since it is a =faked= surface deformation
already and that would make it obsolete maybe? : ) In any case the change
would need the system used in the current patches using isosurface
functions.
Bob
"Jerry" <jer### [at] acusd edu> wrote in message
news:jerry-B58105.11121720121999@news.povray.org...
> I would like to see normals act the same as if they were 'real',
> (heightfields for flat objects). Besides just making more sense to me,
> it keeps open the possibility of a 'deform' keyword some day that
> actually does the deformation that the normal is pretending to do, with
> the obvious speed penalty.
>
> It may never happen, but it has been a dream of mine... to dream... the
> impossible dream...
>
> Jerry
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |