Two iso shapes made from a parabolic function added by the "ridge"
function as illustrated by Mike Williams and his wonderful packed
tutorial...
1st shape w/ mega Pov 0.4 declared...
2nd w/ mega Pov 0.5 declared...
Why the big difference in the way the "ridge" function is calculated
between the two versions...???
??
~
Moon47 wrote:
> > Two iso shapes made from a parabolic function added by the "ridge"> function as illustrated by Mike Williams and his wonderful packed> tutorial...> 1st shape w/ mega Pov 0.4 declared...> 2nd w/ mega Pov 0.5 declared...> Why the big difference in the way the "ridge" function is calculated> between the two versions...???> ??> ~> > ------------------------------------------------------------> [Image] [Image]
Couldn't this be a side effect of the modifications Nathan
did in the noise3d function to eliminate the plateaus in the
bozo and bump patterns?
Jerome
--
* Doctor Jekyll had something * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* to Hyde... * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
*******************************
From: Nathan Kopp
Subject: Re: What's the Difference?
Date: 30 May 2000 12:50:32
Message: <3933f158$1@news.povray.org>
Jerome <ber### [at] inamecom> wrote...
> Moon47 wrote:> >> > Two iso shapes made from a parabolic function added by the "ridge"> > function as illustrated by Mike Williams and his wonderful packed> > tutorial...> > 1st shape w/ mega Pov 0.4 declared...> > 2nd w/ mega Pov 0.5 declared...> > Why the big difference in the way the "ridge" function is calculated> > between the two versions...???>> Couldn't this be a side effect of the modifications Nathan> did in the noise3d function to eliminate the plateaus in the> bozo and bump patterns?
Not really a "side" effect. That is _the_ effect. That difference is the
goal of the change to noise3d. While this, unfortunately, does break old
scenes, it now produces a "more-correct" result.
-Nathan
IMHO in searching for the more correct code has lead to a lose of more
interesting effects... WARNING... Opinions may vary... =)
I like old things... Old cars... Comfortable old cloths... Older women...
On a more serious note... Didn't someone mention the idea of adding a keyword
to turn on/off the old noise3d... This would be helpful as time goes on to be
able to revert the noise alone with out changing the whole scene version...
Say in Mega Pov 0.8 or 1.2...
Nathan Kopp wrote:
> Jerome <ber### [at] inamecom> wrote...> > Moon47 wrote:> > >> > > Two iso shapes made from a parabolic function added by the "ridge"> > > function as illustrated by Mike Williams and his wonderful packed> > > tutorial...> > > 1st shape w/ mega Pov 0.4 declared...> > > 2nd w/ mega Pov 0.5 declared...> > > Why the big difference in the way the "ridge" function is calculated> > > between the two versions...???> >> > Couldn't this be a side effect of the modifications Nathan> > did in the noise3d function to eliminate the plateaus in the> > bozo and bump patterns?>> Not really a "side" effect. That is _the_ effect. That difference is the> goal of the change to noise3d. While this, unfortunately, does break old> scenes, it now produces a "more-correct" result.>> -Nathan
Dear Mr. Moon47
This diffrence cause of noise function in texture.c.
We can select two ways go back to old noise.
1) version set to 0.4
2) #define DNoiseFixPatch in frame.h to cut and recompile.
I select (2) way.
Y.Tanabe
Kobe,Japan
Moon47 wrote:
> IMHO in searching for the more correct code has lead to a lose of more> interesting effects... WARNING... Opinions may vary... =)>> I like old things... Old cars... Comfortable old cloths... Older women...>> On a more serious note... Didn't someone mention the idea of adding a keyword> to turn on/off the old noise3d... This would be helpful as time goes on to be> able to revert the noise alone with out changing the whole scene version...> Say in Mega Pov 0.8 or 1.2...>
com
* to Hyde... * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
*******************************