|
|
On 01/08/2017 03:06 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 08.01.2017 um 19:25 schrieb William F Pokorny:
>
> In the second case, you're not using the actual isosurface, just its
> potential.
>
> The "polarity" keyword does /not/ affect the underlying potential, and
> hence it also does not affect the resulting potential pattern. It just
> affects which portion of the isosurface is considered inside, and which
> one is considered outside:
>
> By default, the "inside" of an isosurface is the set of all points
> (inside the contained_by shape) where the potential is _smaller_ than
> the threshold.
>
> The "inside" of an isosurface with a positive "polarity" setting, on the
> other hand, is the set of all points (inside the contained_by shape)
> where the potential is _larger_ than the threshold (making the behaviour
> consistent with blobs).
>
Thank you Christoph, I was indeed thinking polarity >0 flipped the
underlying potential.
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|