Richard Morton wrote:
> 
> I would disagree with the comment about looking for a perfectly symmetrical
> Christmas tree. That is exactly what I don't look for, because I put up the
> Christmas tree in a corner in a fairly small room, so I need a tree where
> approximately a quarter of the circumference has lower branches that are either
> shorter or more upright than the other three quarters.
> 
> Matt Giwer (almost) wrote:

> >         Take for example a symmetrical Christmas tree, perfectly symmetrical
> > being the search on December 20th. But there is a good and bad side.
> > Also a real tree has good and bad seasons over its years of growing. A
> > real tree tries to maximize its sunlight. A real tree has other trees
> > competing for sunlight.

	An oldie but a goodie. 

	I have been known to ramble on with examples of what lead me to an idea
rather than what follows from it.

	I think that one is in reference to realistic trees for rendering. My
point was that a perfectly symetrical tree is unnatural as is random
asymetry. For example, the sun is always on one side of a christmas
tree, there will be prevailing winds and outside of tree farms growth
will be hindered where it is in the shadows of other trees. 

	The bottom line is that simulated trees should be asymetrical in a
manner emulating the reasons they are asymetrical in nature in order to
look realistic. 

	I don't know how to do that. I was just commenting one potential reason
for the lack of realism of the best models. 

-- 
Just what is the difference between anti-cathoic 
and anti-semitic?
	-- The Iron Webmaster, 298

Post a reply to this message