> Because it might be more realistic if you do all the computations in
> a triangular grid to begin with. Otherwise you have artifacts that
> come from the square grid _and_ from the triangulation afterwards.
> That all depends also of course on the algorithm used.

That's the trouble my latest attempts have run into. I always get artifacts
somewhere. It might work for a single subdivision step, but once I use it
twice or thrice, I get rectangular patterns. Sigh.

> Hmm, did I say hexagonal grid? I meant of course a triangular grid with
> equilateral triangles or equivalently a regular one with six neighbours
> each.

The source I start with is a 2d-grid of points, like the corners on a
checker field. Useful for various simulations, but, as I've found now, quite
difficult to handle for subdivision.

With the last few hours of failed attempts I've decided to let this idea
rest for a while, until I've got more time and patience (and concentration)
at hand. Due to university courses I've got so much other stuff to take care
of and think about, that I can't really focus on this.

Thanks for all the comments anyway, they'll be useful when I get back to
this macro. :-)

Regards,
Tim

-- 
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message