|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Christoph Hormann schrieb in Nachricht <3BBDE65F.62377969@gmx.de>...
>Marc-Hendrik Bremer wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't it be good to mention "accuracy" in this VFAQ-Answer, too?
>>
>
>For what reason? I don't remember many people having problems with that,
>and the meaning is pretty self explanatory.
Because in my opinion those artefacts are not always caused by an inaccurate
max_gradient. Esp. those where big parts are missing or disappearing seems
to me more like an inaccurate accuracy then a max_gradient problem (which
are those black spots like in the scene the thread started with). I may be
wrong in this, but that's how I experienced it in the past.
In addition max_gradient and accuracy seems not to be independent if I
remember an article of the original isosurface-patch writer some weeks ago
correct (unfortunately it was in one of those "Hey folks!"-threats and I
can't find it). While max-gradient seems to determine the "step-width" of
the algorithm, accuracy tells when to stop to look for an ray-intersection.
Is this wrong?
Of course, max-gradient is far more often the problem, which leads to those
artefacts.
Marc-Hendrik
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |