|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"Marc-Hendrik Bremer" <Mar### [at] t-online de> wrote in message
news:39896757@news.povray.org...
| Thanks, Bob, but I don't get it!
Sorry for the delay in replying. Been away from the newsgroups a short
while.
| I'm obviously something wrong. When I use your values, all I get is a
bunch
| of smooth "rocks" - nice in a way and maybe useful someday, but not at all
| what I am looking after :-) No plain, no "closed" formation, more like
| asteroids in space.
method 1 simply doesn't seem compatible from what I had seen. Use only
'eval' and 'accuracy' and nothing else along with method 2 to see
"mountains".
But where you really went wrong is by not using a starting parameter (if
that's the word for it).
#declare H = 0.25; // roughening<>smoothing
#declare Lacunarity = 4; // roughening<>smoothing
#declare Octaves = 7; // smoothing<>roughening (computationally intensive
higher)
#declare Offset = 0.5; // height (suggested to start as 1 in the Doc.)
#declare Gain= 2; // smoothing<>roughening (I used too much maybe)
#declare Fun=
function {"ridgedmf", <H, Lacunarity, Octaves, Offset, Gain>}
isosurface {
function { y - Fun(x,y,z) } // function is applied to x,y,x and
interacted according to y
method 2
eval
accuracy 0.0001
contained_by {box -1,1}
pigment {White}
}
That should get you something.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |