Jens Strohmeyer wrote:
> 
> Hi folks,
> I send you a first image of my just-for-fun attempts
> to design the Northrop F-5E Tiger II fighter jet with POVRAY.
> More images will follow when further development
> stages have been reached.
> Any comments would be nice.
> Jens
> 
>   -----------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

	One of the great pities is povray does not do faring shapes. Not
that it is easy to come up with equations for fairing shapes. I
brought this up once and was told I could have any object
implemented I wished on condition that I provided the equation
for the ray intersection with the surface of the object. 

-- 
Q. "Do you realize I can defame you without penalty?" 
A, "Do you realize I can let you?" 
	-- The Iron Webmaster, 31

Post a reply to this message

In article <39A### [at] ijnet>, Matt Giwer <jul### [at] ijnet> wrote:

> 	One of the great pities is povray does not do faring shapes. Not
> that it is easy to come up with equations for fairing shapes. I
> brought this up once and was told I could have any object
> implemented I wished on condition that I provided the equation
> for the ray intersection with the surface of the object.

What exactly are fairing shapes?

-- 
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

I think what he means can be seen in studying wing construction (F5E being
an excellent example). From root to tip it seems to be a more simple curve
then it really is. It would be fairly simple to describe the shape of a foil
(think wing section) with a single taper, versus a foil with a double or
triple taper. Then, given that you could do that, throw in a few flairs and
twists. I know you could define a simple  aircraft as a series of
discontinuous functions (and therefore shapes), but the effort would require
intimate knowledge of advanced math functions (advanced for most, anyway)
for more complex forms. Too, a lot of code tweaking would be involved in
complex constructs (not to mention finding/defining the limits of each
function within a particular section/taper). This is not beyond Pov,
obviously, but it would very easy to get lost in the code. Further, I
suspect most artists could care less about math (apologies to Chris Young,
et al).

I tried it, realized it could be done, and then opted to use meshes instead
(I'm lazy and greedy with my render time). ;)

Grim

Post a reply to this message