I just saw ABX's question about weighting normals again:

> I have point O and points P1, P2, ... PN connected as
> traingles P1OP2, P2OP3, ..., PN-1OPN, PNOP1
> I want calculate best normal at point O for all this
> triangles. Should it be simple normalized summary of
> all normals or waighted one depend of areas of each
> triangle ? Maybe other way ?

I got this idea:

Weight the normal depending not on the areas of the triangles but on the
angle they are taking up in the point O. That way the result will always
depend on the shape of the corner, and if the shape is the same, the normal
will also be the same, even if the triangles are structured differently.

For an example, imagine the corner of a cube. It can be made up of 3 equal
big triangles which each take up 90 degrees in the corner. The normal will
be an average of the normals of the 3 triangles. But even if one of the
triangles is much bigger than the others, the normal will still be the same,
because the corner is the same.

Do you think this would work well?

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated December 17)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message