Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Having thunk about it a little, I think one problem with using the Miller
> indices directly is that the x,y,z axes are not always orthogonal in
> crystal structures. For example, the x and y axes in the hexagonal system

> perpendicular to them both. This goes for other structures too - e.g.
> rhombohedral and monoclinic are bound to suffer similar problems. You might
> have more luck with this approach for cubic systems.

I agree with everything you just said. All my (limited) research into 
this area seems to point to the simple fact that:

> you could always define axis vectors for the different systems and
> use them instead of the regular coordinate vectors.

But I don't know how to implement this just yet. It *should* be as easy 

yet to get it to work.

> On the other hand, you seem to be producing pretty nice crystal shapes with
> your current method, so who am I to meddle with your productivity! :-)

I think *any* crystal can be accurately depicted with this method, so 
you could say I'm happy with it :) Punching in Miller indices would be 
much easier, but hey, at least I can still squeeze geometry from that 
demo version of KrystalShaper :)

> Let's see some more renders like that first one

I'll be making more, you can count on it :D

Sam

Post a reply to this message