This has been discussed in the past (with no resolution found).  The problem
is that POV's Noise() function is not "correct".  A solution has been
proposed which would, unfortunately, not be completely backwards compatible.
My personal preference would be to provide an option to allow backwards
compatibility but by default use a "correct" Noise().

-Nathan

Greg M. Johnson <gre### [at] my-dejanewscom> wrote...
> Yeah, just discovered this last night.
>
> Is there/ will there EVER BE a flat-plateau-free noisy function?  From my
> ignorant perspective, I wonder if it is as simple as changing one or two
> lines of codes?
>
> Chris Huff wrote:
>
> > In article <3899AA1F.C9FA0F9E@my-dejanews.com>,
> > gre### [at] my-dejanewscom wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, the bumps pigment in an isosurface looks more like what I
> > > want than the noise3d.
> >
> > They are the exact same thing. They both use the Noise() function to
> > calculate the result...the only difference is that bumps is calculated
> > differently in texture normals. You should get the exact same results if
> > you use either bumps, bozo or spotted in the pigment.
> >
> > > Is there a way to do mathematical operations on pigments?
> > >
> > > I've tried with failure:
> > >     function { y- pigment {bumps}}
> > > Should I instead  I do:
> > >     function {y}- function{pigment {bumps}}
> > > Or:
> > >     #declare yikes= function{pigment {bumps}};
> > >     isosurface {
> > >         function {y-yikes}
> >
> > The second one is closest, try
> > #declare yikes= function{pigment {bumps}};
> > isosurface {
> >     function {y - yikes(x, y, z)}
> >     ...
> > }
> >
> > I think the (x, y, z) part is a default in the MegaPOV version, but it
> > has caused trouble for me before and it seems to be a good idea to
> > include it anyway. It is better for readability, and if you want to
> > modify the function later, could make it easier.
> >
> > --
> > Chris Huff
> > e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
> > Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message