> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
>> One of the problems might be that we do not have calibration data for
>> the sensors.
>
> I think it's just a matter of displaying the data that's available.
>
>> I rendered it as triangles in a mesh. The points are not planer. You
>> could use a statistical formula to make them sit on a plane.
>
> I think it's all Y data - the X and z coordinates I derived from the diagram
> that was provided.  I just connected the perimeter points to get a few
> triangles, and it looks _OK_ - it would be better with smooth triangles, but I'm
> unsure exactly how to calculate the corner normals.
>
>> You step through the data using the clock or frame_number variables.
>
> I used frame number - worked fine
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.animations/thread/%3Cweb.56d9fbdd155fef445e7df57c0%40news.povray.org%3E/
>
>> Talking about the data. I don't understand the time stamp. Five second
>> intervals, that's quite slow, is it not? And what are the units of the
>> sensors?

The units used can be totaly arbitrary. They can be in thousanth of an 
inch, micrometer, dust grains, mili-picas,... They only need to be self 
concistent. All we meed to have, is the possibility to assume that the 
data are linear.

>
> Maybe it's a geologic plate ...  ;)
> Could be they meant milliseconds or something.

That would be my guess also. Mili- or microsecond.

>
>> The long time interval makes me think that using splines is not the way
>> to go.
>
> Just normalize the time stamp to the interval 0-1 by dividing them all by 490,
> although I don't think the spline is limited by the numbers.
>
>
>

Splines are not limited to any range of values. Those can be negative or 
positive and range in the millions if wanted or needed.

In this case, you can multiply clock by 490, or whatever, to get the 
same result.

Post a reply to this message