Wlodzimierz ABX Skiba wrote:
> 


> there is more about my idea in p.u-p in todays posts
> 

Yes !!!

> I don't want tesselate anything without agreement of user
> 

Agreed, now that I've seen your approach...
I would still think it would have been a new object (kind of 
CSG variants/mutation...)


> well written documentation should have description what deform{} cause

Yes. But that's probably for later...


> I plan support this built-in engine of warps
> 

That's a good thing!



> 
> Well, currently I play with pure mechanism of inheriting of textures
> You can halp me with type of deformations
> every deformations should have described four things
> b) undeform function

This limit you to inversable transformation.
Beware, some warps have singularity...

> a) deform function (with calculation of new normal)

I am wrong in thinking that the deformation of the normal
is simply the resulting deformation of both extremity ?

> c) calculation of new bbox of deformed bbox

Yes, not obvious for some deformation.
But if you have a container object, I do not see the need
for that.

> d) calculations of begining and ending of ray crossing deformed shape (for
> twisting it is cylinder)

That's the all_intersection of the container, isn't it ?

> for i=depth1 to depth2 step accuracy

That was the reason of my 'Ouch...'
It may slow down a lot!


> 
> after advice of Chris Huff I plan to omit this limitations

Which one ? the reversable transform ? How ?


> > > > But I cannot still understand
> > > > how you can apply them into the resolving intersection of a line
> > > > and a sphere (e.g. as is currently the function for the sphere object)
> > > > when applied to a true basic object (and not a set of triangles)
> > >
> > > by spliting ray to short segments and deform them and intersect base object
> >
> > Ouch...
> 
> sorry, what's wrong ? :-)
> 

I just imagined the explosion of additional rays to cast...

> > > http://www.abx.art.pl/pov/nonlinear/step3.jpg
> >
> > Nice!!!
> > I can imagine how to do it with a warp-based mesh deformation,
> > but you probably did it with a real checkered box.
> 
> right, with uv-mapping
> 

Why ? a warp should have been enough...
(deform the box, warp the texture, with the same equations...)


> > But may I ask to have some background checkered planes and some
> > shadows of the box casted on them. I'm really curious.
> 
> as I said I'll prepare some images for you
> 

Thanks you.


> ok. here is current list of closed modifications
> 
> new module deform.c with definition of Deform object

So, it is an object... I like it.

> new Parse_Deform() in parse.c

Obviously.

> new closing parts of functions called Parse_Object_Mod()
> new CASE in Parse_Object_Mod()

Here we had a little divergence of opinions, but 
please do it your way.

> some new tokens

Yes, Obviously.

> new field in ISTACK
> new parameter to all All_Intersections with max_depth

These I will probably not like either...

Have a nice week-end.

Post a reply to this message