"Marc-Hendrik Bremer" <Mar### [at] t-onlinede> 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