Am 25.07.2013 21:09, schrieb Shay:

>> So what you are saying is that you also beveled the transition between
>> the "petals" and the tori forming the end of the small-hole
>> extrusions; is that the essence of it?
>
> I /think/ so. For each small hole, I used 1 object for the hole, 1
> object to bound, and 16 objects to build the extrusion, though the 16
> could be optimized to 14. That's probably where the majority of the
> object count difference can be found.

Did you consider punching the hole through the petal /after/ adding the 
extrusion? That might allow for a simpler extrusion, as you won't need 
to punch a separate hole through it.

>> Sounds like you used clipping as a substitute for intersection, is
>> that what you're saying?
>
> Correct. I didn't sit down and count intersection tests to make sure
> that was the most efficient way. Maybe it isn't.

Thinking about it, I come to suspect that clipping is actually less 
computationally intensive; after all, intersection testing is only 
performed on the clipped object, while the clipping object is only 
tested for insideness once an intersection has been found.

>> Okay, okay - I'll try to come up with formulae for all those
>> parameters...
>
> As far as I'm concerned, hand-coding is hand-coding, by hook or by crook
> (though my way seems a lot more fun).

I've got all the math sorted out by now (except for the more complex 
hole extrusion stuff), so modifying the thing for e.g. 7-fold instead of 
8-fold symmetry, changing the petals' size and other some such would now 
be a piece of cake; no manual tweaking anymore.

> Priggish professional programmers are the reason I don't post code in
> these forums. One told me that I shouldn't be coding algorithms if I
> don't know what a stack is. That's like my saying he shouldn't be
> writing newsgroup posts if he doesn't know what a chiasmus is.

:-D

It's also like saying that a child shouldn't be playing with any toy if 
it doesn't know how to play with it the way the designer intended.

Which is rubbish even if there is solid reason to play according to the 
designer's rules (unless of course violation of those rules is seriously 
dangerous); science has found out that children actually learn faster 
how to use something properly if they've already spent some time toying 
around with it as they seem fit, and there is plenty of reason to 
suspect that this is the case for every learning process in every age.

As long as you code just for the fun of it, my stance is that coding is 
fair game for everyone in every way they like.

(And no, I have not the slightest idea what a chiasmus is - I'd have to 
google that ;-))

Post a reply to this message