Chris Huff wrote:
> 
> In article <39C### [at] enstfr>, Jérôme Berger
> <Jer### [at] enstfr> wrote:
> 
> >       Are you sure? I thought I saw something in the doc about there being
> > two methods for computing normals in isosurfaces and isoblobs and one of
> > them looks a lot like what you described...
> 
> That would be the "normal on|off" feature...I don't know the details of
> the different methods, but "normal on" is supposed to be more accurate,
> though it can't be used with functions using noise3d() or atan2().
> 
	Yes, that's it. I think that "normal off" is less accurate precisely
because it relies on a sampling method. OTOH it works in all cases
whereas "normal on" requires more definitions (in POV's source code, not
in your file) that don't exist for all functions (and maybe can't exist
for some) and therefore is less general.

		Jérôme

PS: note that I haven't looked in detail at this part of the code so I
could be completely wrong...
-- 
******************************* Jérôme M. BERGER
* Doctor Jekyll had something * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* to Hyde...                  * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
*******************************

Post a reply to this message