news:3D55BDA6.8D1B0BE9@tiscalinet.de...
> High!
>
> Marc-Hendrik Bremer schrieb:
>
>   I noticed that, too. *Maybee* try to shift your look_at point just al
little
>   bit, if look_at and the position of the camera are in a strait line,
there
>   are some odd artefacts IIRC.
>
>
> No, the camera viewing direction isn't parallel to any axis, it faces
> south-southwest and slightly upward!
>

Ok, looks a little like a coincedence surface problem, but if this can't be
the case, then you probably suffer from the beloved floating-point
precision, I think. You could try to apply a normal (as Mick suggested) to
your HF, that might help to cover or solve the problem.

>   Hm, I don't know for sure, what an adobe wall looks like (my dictionary
>   translates adobe with "Luftziegel").
>
> Yes, "luftgetrocknete Lehmziegel" (sun-dried mud bricks)...
>
>   Perhaps have al look at the
>   Irregular_Bricks_Ptrn in textures.inc. It's probably a good idea to
choose
>   the used object (and method - normal or isosurf) by calculating the
distance
>   to the camera. The mentiones pattern f.e. will work quite well as normal
or
>   as function in an isosurface, that makes it easy to switch between both
>   methods.
>
> I've tried this, but it looked very different from my notions of Afghan
mud
> walls - they are partly made of bricks, but
> somehow the bricks are almost undiscernable, perhaps bricks and mortar
look very
> similar, or there is a kind of rough plaster
> over them. Another type of mud wall is just formed amorphous mud, no
bricks at
> all.
>
>   If the walls are roughcasted the granite pattern will do quite a good
job
>   IMHO.
>
> Yes, it looks more like what I have in mind... but with simple boxes, I
still
> have sharp edges like they never occur in real mud
> buildings, their shapes are in fact rounded/softened. After having heard
so much
> about the astonishing properties of
> isosurfaces, I wish I had some experience in using them... sigh...
>

Isosurfaces are not that hard to master, as long as you use more or less
standard functions (boxes, spheres, cones etc.) or use the internal
functions (functions.inc). Don't allways believe what the warning message
tell's you is the required max_gradient or you might have to wait for ages,
esp. if you use pattern-functions. I have some function here which reports a
max_gradient of more than 1000 but renders very well with a max_gradient of
10. It's not that you should ignore that higher max_gradient - but as long
as there are no artefacts visible, why should you wait longer as needed?

If you have some reference photos, I could probably build some basic example
of an isosurface based building ...

BTW this link seems to be brocken on your homepage:
http://home.arcor.de/yadgar/khyberspace/afghlinks-d.html (same with the
English version)

Regards,

Marc-Hendrik

Post a reply to this message