|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
JRG wrote:
>
> L'Harmonieux Forgeron wrote:
> > The container is: a sphere, a box, a rotated box and a cone.
> > My solution is a new object(*) which has intersections only
> > with rays whose direction is same as the normal of the surface.
>
> You lost me here.
Please excuse the bad explanation.
>By *direction* you don't mean the exact direction of the
> normals, do you? You mean something like: if (vdot (ray_vector,normal) > 0)
> then intersection occurs?
Yes, Exactly.
> From your examples it looks so. Simplifying, a
> nexus would be an object of which you can only see the _interior_.
Well, the inversed nexus just appears like the normal object.
It's just a very strange experimental object.
Applied to a plane, the plane exist when going one way but not the other!
It also have a side effect on light source, because, unless using no_shadow,
the light_source outside the nexus do not get access to inside the nexus, and
vice-versa!
>
> > Any interest ?
>
> Truly, I don't really know. At a first glance it doesn't look that
> intuitive, so I can't judge. Of course it would allow to see through a box,
> but... I don't really know.
> Not always a container has no depth.
You lost me here.
> With CSG
> containers with some depth (for example the difference of two boxes) a nexus
> would be of no help.
I was just thinking about your example: making a box out of 6 planes, whose
only one of them would be a nexus and the other 5 still be normal planes.
Or even stranger, drilling a hole with CSG difference in the container and
adding a nexus just like a magic windows to close the container again.
--
Non Sine Numine
http://grimbert.cjb.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |