Christoph Hormann wrote:

> I previously considered writing such a macro, but i thought it would be
> much faster if done internally in POV - like the tesselation patch, which
> is still buggy (wasn't there someone who fixed that bug using a different
> algorithm recently?)

If you are speaking about my experiments, I'm sorry to say that the bug is
still in, unless I use an alternate tesselation technics which approximate
the object with a set of little cub or a variant.
But then the mesh is usually ugly, because there is at most 3 or 34 normals
( x/y/z and their rotation by 50 grades around all axes).
It's better than the walking tetrahedron ONLY when tesselating a box,
or a similar shape. For other shapes, the size of triangles must be so small
to get something smooth that's really long to parse and the need of memory
is huge. 
Warps approach was very good for smoothness without too much memory.

The link: http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/pbourke/modelling/polygonise/
looks interesting, because it is similar to my approach but pushes the
number of possible normals further, thus providing probably smoothness 
at a lower resolution. 

I will give it a try when I have some time :-)

Post a reply to this message