In article <39F981BA.7159989D@schunter.etc.tu-bs.de>, 
chr### [at] gmxde wrote:

> L-Systems have the same disadvantages as tree macros (IIRC most tree 
> macros are essentially specialized l-systems with some improvements). 

An L-system patch would process much faster than a macro...the problem 
is, what would it be represented as? A union of cones and spheres? A 
mesh? A blob or isosurface? A macro can easily be customized to do 
whatever you need, but a patch would be too specialized...and there 
doesn't seem to be much demand for an L-system macro/include file when 
there are macros and include files designed to generate plants and 
L-system programs that can output POV-Script.

If you could somehow retrieve data from an L-system patch, like my 
particle system patch allows, it would be more useful, but you would 
still pay for parsing speed with flexibility.

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message