|
 |
Hi Mike,
I think you could use an isosurface like this:
#declare _thickness = 1.0;
#declare thickParaboloid =
function { abs(pow(x,2) + pow(z,2) - y) - _thickness * 0.5}
isosurface {
function { thickParaboloid(x,y,z) }
max_gradient 15.0
contained_by { box { -5, 5 } }
texture { pigment { color rgb 1.0 } }
}
Or, you could approximate it with a lathe object.
Hope it will help.
Pascal
Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> How would I create a paraboloid with thickness N?
>
> I'm guessing I need need to create an offset surface of some sort. Does
> it need to be an isosurface?
>
>
>
> Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
On 1/26/2021 5:26 AM, BayashiPascal wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> I think you could use an isosurface like this:
>
> #declare _thickness = 1.0;
> #declare thickParaboloid =
> function { abs(pow(x,2) + pow(z,2) - y) - _thickness * 0.5}
>
> isosurface {
> function { thickParaboloid(x,y,z) }
> max_gradient 15.0
> contained_by { box { -5, 5 } }
> texture { pigment { color rgb 1.0 } }
> }
>
> Or, you could approximate it with a lathe object.
>
> Hope it will help.
>
> Pascal
>
>
> Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> How would I create a paraboloid with thickness N?
>>
>> I'm guessing I need need to create an offset surface of some sort. Does
>> it need to be an isosurface?
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
Thank you! I will test it out.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
On 2021-01-26 3:56 AM (-4), Mike Horvath wrote:
> How would I create a paraboloid with thickness N?
>
> I'm guessing I need need to create an offset surface of some sort. Does
> it need to be an isosurface?
My immediate thought was that this is a job for the quadric primitive.
Alas, after two days of weird results, it became clear that the quadric
has bounding pathologies, even in POV-Ray 3.8. I knew there was a bug
in 3.7's quadric--in fact, I discovered it; but whatever was done to fix
it hasn't completely resolved the bounding issues.
However, I found that poly { 2 } does not have these problems.
The following code creates a paraboloid with the apex downward, apex at
the origin, radius R, height H, and wall thickness T:
----------[BEGIN CODE]----------
// parameters
#declare R = ;
#declare H = ;
#declare T = ;
// derived
#declare A = H / pow (R, 2);
#declare T1 = (2 * H * T) / (sqrt (1 + pow (2 * H / R, 2)) * R);
#declare A1 = (H - T) / pow (R - T1, 2);
intersection
{ cylinder { 0, H * y, R }
poly { 2, <A, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, -1, A, 0, 0> }
poly { 2, <-A1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, -A1, 0, -T> }
}
-----------[END CODE]-----------
T1 is the horizontal component of the wall thickness at height H. It
was derived by taking the derivative of the parabola in the x-y plane at
x and plugging it into the Pythagorean equation.
One thing I noticed about BayashiPascal's code is that the contained_by
box is much larger than the paraboloid. All that extra volume slows
down the rendering of the isosurface, so you’ll want to tighten that up.
By using box { <-R, -_thickness / 2, -R>, <R, 5, R> } where R = sqrt
(5 + _thickness / 2), I was able to reduce the max_gradient to 6.4 and
cut 1/3 off the render time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> One thing I noticed about BayashiPascal's code is that the contained_by
> box is much larger than the paraboloid. All that extra volume slows
> down the rendering of the isosurface, so you’ll want to tighten that up.
> By using box { <-R, -_thickness / 2, -R>, <R, 5, R> } where R = sqrt
> (5 + _thickness / 2), I was able to reduce the max_gradient to 6.4 and
> cut 1/3 off the render time.
Right. Thanks for improving my lazy solution.
Pascal
Post a reply to this message
|
|
