"Slime" <slm### [at] slimelandcom> schreef in bericht
news:3db1c5c9@news.povray.org...
> > When used with the smooth height
> > field bug fix and my shadow line fix, this creates an extremely smooth
> > height field.
> Like this. (I admit I slightly changed a small part of the height field
that
> was casting an ugly tiny shadow on itself.)

Sorry, not good enough...  Look at my post a couple of months ago, where I
compare smooth height_fields with a mesh of smooth_triangles.  With a
height_field, you can still see the outline of the triangles, it looks like
the shading gets smoothed instead of the normals... it's hard to explain,
but I think it's pretty clear if you look at the images I posted.  (I would
look the post up

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate your efforts in making the height_field
object better, but I would just really like that problem fixed.

cu!

whoops, update:

you wrote, in a reply to Christoph Hormann:
"Heh, actually, I've already used this syntax to let the user choose between
POV-Ray 3.5's normal calculation (1) and a different type of normal
calculation that I came up with (2) which tends to look better overall.
(POV-Ray bases the normal of a vertex on the vertices diagonally across from
it; I base it off of the vertices adjacent to it.)"

I think that's what I talking about.
If so: whoohoo!!!!!!!  Finally height_fields will be really useful!! :)
If not: :(((((
:)

cu!
--
ZK AKA SaD
http://www.povplace.be.tf
"Surely you've heard of silicon heaven?"

Post a reply to this message