On 3-7-2013 17:41, scott wrote:
>> The difficulty imo resides
>> with the use of isosurfaces which have overhangs. A height_field would
>> be easier in this case.
>
> Do you specifically want overhangs or not? If not then you can rewrite
> your isosurface function instead of f(x,y,z) put something like
> y-f(x,0,z) which will guarantee no overhangs (more like a height field).
> You'll need to change the function details though to get a similar shape
> as before.
>

Overhangs are necessary features of the rocks, hence the use of 
isosurfaces. Otherwise yes, the 0 instead of y is a useful feature indeed.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message