 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <39E103B3.7EE3B0A9@hotmail.com>, Tor Olav Kristensen
<tor### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> Is there a way in MegaPOV to have a
> "pattern surface" ? (I.e. make the surface
> of a 3D-shape appear where a pattern have
> a certain threshold value.)
The isosurface is perfect for this...
#declare Func =
function {
pigment {bozo color_map {[0 rgb 0][1 rgb 1]}}
}
isosurface {
function {Func(x, y, z)}
threshold 0.5
contained_by {
box {<-1,-1,-1>, < 1, 1, 1>}
}
}
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> ...
> Is there a way in MegaPOV to have a
> "pattern surface" ? (I.e. make the surface
> of a 3D-shape appear where a pattern have
> a certain threshold value.)
Thank you all for fast replies.
You've helped me to do what I wanted.
But I don't understand why one has to involve
pigments to determine a surface.
Why can I not define the function like this ?
function {
eval_pattern(bozo scale <1, 1, 1>/4, x + y + z)
}
Please explain.
Enclosed are an image I just made.
I love isosurfaces !
Tor Olav
--
mailto:tor### [at] hotmailcom
http://www.crosswinds.net/~tok/tokrays.html
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'bozo.jpg' (48 KB)
Preview of image 'bozo.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <39E123D3.1C989ED3@hotmail.com>, Tor Olav Kristensen
<tor### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Why can I not define the function like this ?
>
> function {
> eval_pattern(bozo scale <1, 1, 1>/4, x + y + z)
> }
>
> Please explain.
Because nobody has added the eval_pattern() function to isosurface
functions yet. Oh, and it wouldn't be "x + y + z", it looks like you
meant "x, y, z". :-)
The eval_pattern() function would probably be a little bit faster than a
pigment function, and certainly easier to use, but I don't plan on
trying to add it to isosurfaces until a MegaPOV based on POV 3.5 is
released. Adding an isosurface function is a bit more complex than
ordinary functions, and I want to wait until the isosurface code is
cleaned up and organized better.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote:
> In article <39E123D3.1C989ED3@hotmail.com>, Tor Olav Kristensen
> <tor### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
> > Why can I not define the function like this ?
> >
> > function {
> > eval_pattern(bozo scale <1, 1, 1>/4, x + y + z)
> > }
> >
> > Please explain.
>
> Because nobody has added the eval_pattern() function to isosurface
> functions yet. Oh, and it wouldn't be "x + y + z", it looks like you
> meant "x, y, z". :-)
Yes you're right. I think I misunderstood that part.
> The eval_pattern() function would probably be a little bit faster than a
> pigment function, and certainly easier to use, but I don't plan on
> trying to add it to isosurfaces until a MegaPOV based on POV 3.5 is
> released. Adding an isosurface function is a bit more complex than
> ordinary functions, and I want to wait until the isosurface code is
> cleaned up and organized better.
Ahh... I thought that any float expression would do. -Sorry.
Has the added complexity anything to do with the derivatives
of these iso-functions ?
Tor Olav
--
mailto:tor### [at] hotmailcom
http://www.crosswinds.net/~tok/tokrays.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steve wrote:
> Fase clock animate dude.
What do you mean ?
That I should make an animation of it ?
Have anyone done any animations with iso-
surfaces that changes their shapes according to
a 3D-pattern that has it's different parameters
changed slowly ?
I'll have to try that some day.
Tor Olav
--
mailto:tor### [at] hotmailcom
http://www.crosswinds.net/~tok/tokrays.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <39E231FE.909F7B5B@online.no>, Tor Olav Kristensen
<tto### [at] onlineno> wrote:
> > Fase clock animate dude.
> What do you mean ?
> That I should make an animation of it ?
Don't worry, you aren't the only one who doesn't understand...
"Fase" = Face?
Clocks have faces...
Maybe he wants you to make an animated clock with isosurfaces...
:-)
> Have anyone done any animations with iso-
> surfaces that changes their shapes according to
> a 3D-pattern that has it's different parameters
> changed slowly ?
It has been done before, so it is useable. I think there is an explosion
effect which uses this technique.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <39E23003.454939EC@online.no>, Tor Olav Kristensen
<tto### [at] onlineno> wrote:
> Ahh... I thought that any float expression would do. -Sorry.
Nope, there are a few functions which haven't been added yet.
> Has the added complexity anything to do with the derivatives
> of these iso-functions ?
No. The problem is that isosurface functions are processed in a
completely different way from the rest of the POV Script language. They
are saved in a data structure and evaluated during the rendering process
to search for the isosurface intersections, instead of being executed at
parse time.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
[...]
>
> Enclosed are an image I just made.
> I love isosurfaces !
>
> Tor Olav
Welcome to the isosurface fan club, you should start saving money for a new
faster computer, because you will need it soon ... :-)
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > Enclosed are an image I just made.
> > I love isosurfaces !
> >
> > Tor Olav
>
> Welcome to the isosurface fan club, you should start saving money for a new
> faster computer, because you will need it soon ... :-)
=)
I have already saved some money that I hope I can use for a new computer.
Since I want to select every part of it myself, I never come to buy it.
This is because when I finally have found a device I like, then some of the
others I have found earlier is not still "the best value for money". :(
Tor Olav
--
mailto:tor### [at] hotmailcom
http://www.crosswinds.net/~tok/tokrays.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote:
> In article <39E23003.454939EC@online.no>, Tor Olav Kristensen
> <tto### [at] onlineno> wrote:
>
> > Ahh... I thought that any float expression would do. -Sorry.
>
> Nope, there are a few functions which haven't been added yet.
>
> > Has the added complexity anything to do with the derivatives
> > of these iso-functions ?
>
> No. The problem is that isosurface functions are processed in a
> completely different way from the rest of the POV Script language. They
> are saved in a data structure and evaluated during the rendering process
> to search for the isosurface intersections, instead of being executed at
> parse time.
I see.
Thank you for explaining.
Tor Olav
--
mailto:tor### [at] hotmailcom
http://www.crosswinds.net/~tok/tokrays.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
