"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:web.49b502d4d4fd5b286dd25f0b0@news.povray.org...
> Triangles are not difficult... if you can write a climbing ivy macro I'm 
> sure
> you'll have no trouble. The main pig is that you can't use the regular
> transforms on the individual triangles in a mesh, so you'll have to 
> calculate
> your triangle vertices the old-fashioned way; make use of vrotate() and
> friends. After that, just treat a mesh as any other object. Don't worry 
> about
> mesh2 yet!

O_o'

They seem tedious more than difficult....I hate tedium.

> You could take a look at Chambers' grass macro in the object collection,
> although that's just a single loop to create many blades in one mesh (I 
> think -
> I just glanced over it).
>
> Start small and simple, maybe with only hand-built clump meshes at first, 
> till
> you're comfortable with using triangles.
>

I'll take a look at that there, and given that those are blades of grass, 
its probably not too far off from what I want to do with moss leaves anyway, 
I'd just need to grab one blade.

>
>> It ended up taking 7min to parse with 90 vines and 15k moss object tests
>
> That's quite long, but I guess finding the vine routes will always be 
> quite
> intensive. I once had a scene parse for over half an hour, so I wouldn't 
> worry
> too much... you could always save the positions to a data file if there's 
> lots
> of heavy calculation. :-)

Suprisingly, its not the vine routes that takes the time, its tracing the 
moss onto the individual vine components.

I need to do something differently with that, but I'll figure it out. I have 
a few ideas.

ian

Post a reply to this message