Nathan Kopp wrote:
> 
> Is f_ridged_mf "correct' with noise 1 or with 2/3?  (i.e. does it need to be
> re-tweaked for noise 2 & 3)?
> 

I think all versions of f_ridged_mf are somewhat wrong, see the following
pictures and histograms:

http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/files/RMF_noise1.png
http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/files/RMF_noise2.png
http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/files/RMF_noise3.png
http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/files/RMF_wilbur.png
http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/files/RMF_ategeros.png

http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/files/hist_noise1.png
http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/files/hist_noise2.png
http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/files/hist_noise3.png
http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/files/hist_wilbur.png
http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/files/hist_ategeros.png

RMF parameters are: 0.6, 2.2, 7, 0.7, 0.8

What you can see is that apart from a range problem with all noise
generators, there are small 'hills' in the lowest parts, with ng 1 they
are extremely exaggerated.  Such hills can occur with certain parameters,
but they should not with these.  See the results from other programs for
comparison.

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message