Hi all

This was just an experiment - not meant as a finished piece. The ridged
multifractal is slow to render - this is 2 ridged multifractals added
together and takes, with everything else, about six hours to render. The
biggest problem was scaling trace to trace a surface bigger than one unit.
It would be possible to make the landscape much bigger. The waterfall is a
good idea and I agree the sky would need lots of work if I was ever to
finish this piece. It was posted to give people an idea of what they might
do with the ridged multifractal.

Mick
*************************************************************
       http://www.minda.swinternet.co.uk/index.htm

*************************************************************
"Chris Huff" <chr### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:chrishuff_99-C9F81A.11222506032000@news.povray.org...
> In article <38C3CE4F.58AD268A@peak.edu.ee>, Margus Ramst
> <mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote:
>
> > That's a lot of isosurfaces... Won't it be slow?
>
> Not necessarily...the speed of an isosurface can vary a lot. Some are
> faster than most of the other shapes available(isosurface
> superellipsoids are faster than ordinary superellipsoids, for example).
> Others are extremely slow. In my experience, avoiding functions with
> high slope helps a lot. These seem pretty simple, noise3d() displaced
> cones, spheres, etc. They should render pretty fast if only one
> noise3d() is used. I don't know about the ridged multifractal though...I
> have never used it.
>
> --
> Chris Huff
> e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
> Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/

Post a reply to this message