Your tetrahedron edges are labeled "Tetrahedron_vertexes". The text 
sometimes casts shadows on the objects, I'd make it shadowless. And you 
might want to put spheres at the vertices of the edge samples to make 
the junctions of the cylinders smooth.
And I was about to pick on your spelling of "vertices" as "vertexes", 
but I checked the dictionary and both are allowed...

Oh, and why don't the cuboctahedron and icosidodecahedron have edges, 
vertices, or loops? And where are the loops for the tetrahedron?


Well, that's enough nit-picking...BTW, nice polyhedrons. ;-)
I think I'll have some fun with this include file...

-- 
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:

> Your tetrahedron edges are labeled "Tetrahedron_vertexes". The text
> sometimes casts shadows on the objects, I'd make it shadowless.

Oops cut paste mistake.  Fixed it in my scene file.  I think the images
look to flat with a shadowless light.  I changed one of the lightsource
locations, it looks better now.

> And you
> might want to put spheres at the vertices of the edge samples to make
> the junctions of the cylinders smooth.
> And I was about to pick on your spelling of "vertices" as "vertexes",
> but I checked the dictionary and both are allowed...
>

I wanted the image to accurately show what the function outputted.  The
functions are designed to work together, so if you used say

union {
            Cube_vertexes(1,.1)
            Cube_edges(1,.1)
            }
you would have perfect smooth junctions.  I knew of both spellings, I like
the sound of the second one better.

>
> Oh, and why don't the cuboctahedron and icosidodecahedron have edges,
> vertices, or loops?

    I got tired, maybe I will put all of the Archimedian Solids in version
2.  I just did the cuboctahedron, and icosidodecahedron, because they were
so easy using the code I already had.  They are just an intersections
between to of the shapes I already had.  They look cooler when you use
different colors for the two intersecting shapes.    Combining the
octahedron_loops, and the cube_loops would be the same as
cuboctahedronloops.  Similarly for icosidodecahedron.

> And where are the loops for the tetrahedron?
>

    Turn out to be the same as cubeloops... bummer.

>
> Well, that's enough nit-picking...BTW, nice polyhedrons. ;-)
> I think I'll have some fun with this include file...
>
> --
> 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

Attachments:
Download 'combining.png' (26 KB)

Preview of image 'combining.png'

Chris Huff wrote:

> Oh, and why don't the cuboctahedron and icosidodecahedron have edges,
> vertices, or loops? And where are the loops for the tetrahedron?

Actually the cuboctahedron loop would be very easy to make. The edges form
three sets of coplanar octagons, xy, xz and yz planes.

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

Two little nits to pick. First, do you insist on the text having a
shadow? And second, the plural of "vertex" is "vertices" :)

Aside from that, great job and great math!


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

Peter Popov wrote:

> Two little nits to pick. First, do you insist on the text having a
> shadow? And second, the plural of "vertex" is "vertices" :)
>
> Aside from that, great job and great math!
>
> Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
> Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
> TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Sorry about the shadow, I will be more careful next time.  I just
checked my dictionary, it says ver*tex*es or ver*ti*ces.  Apparently
both are correct.

Dan Johnson

Post a reply to this message

In article <3A5E889A.D30DFEB8@hotmail.com>, Dan Johnson 
<zap### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> Oops cut paste mistake.  Fixed it in my scene file.  I think the images
> look to flat with a shadowless light.  I changed one of the lightsource
> locations, it looks better now.

You *are* aware you can make specific objects shadowless, aren't you? I 
was suggesting you give the text objects no_shadow, not using a 
shadowless light_source.


> I wanted the image to accurately show what the function outputted.  The
> functions are designed to work together, so if you used say
> 
> union {
>             Cube_vertexes(1,.1)
>             Cube_edges(1,.1)
>             }
> you would have perfect smooth junctions.  I knew of both spellings, I like
> the sound of the second one better.

I see...I hadn't realized this was direct output of the macros.

-- 
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

Following up on my own post here.

>Two little nits to pick. First, do you insist on the text having a
>shadow? 

I should havew guessed someone would have already picked that one up
by the time I posted :)

>And second, the plural of "vertex" is "vertices" :)

I never knew "vertexes" was accepted. Must be the Latin classes I once
took. Sorry.

>Aside from that, great job and great math!

Ditto.

(oops, I am replying to my own post... at least I agree with myself)


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

Chris Huff wrote:

> You *are* aware you can make specific objects shadowless, aren't you? I
> was suggesting you give the text objects no_shadow, not using a
> shadowless light_source.
>

Well I have only been using POV-Ray since late November, and I haven't read all
of the docs yet.

>
> I see...I hadn't realized this was direct output of the macros.
>

Has anyone even looked at the source I posted?  The include file has lots of
comments.  With the exception of my arrange3d macro that does so much in such
short code that I have to stare at it a long time to rediscover how it works.

Dan Johnson

Post a reply to this message

In article <3A603BBE.BEFE3A4B@hotmail.com>, Dan Johnson 
<zap### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> Well I have only been using POV-Ray since late November, and I 
> haven't read all of the docs yet.

Ah, all right...you're off to a good start! :-)


> Has anyone even looked at the source I posted?  The include file has 
> lots of comments.  With the exception of my arrange3d macro that does 
> so much in such short code that I have to stare at it a long time to 
> rediscover how it works.

I had been on my way to download them when I posted that first message. 
Looks like some interesting stuff in there...

-- 
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

How are "loops" defined?
Great circles whose poles are vertices, or what?

(On the matter of plurals: I'm another one who studied Latin when the
world was younger; and it vexes me that in so many words a final `s',
which in Latin (among others) is an explicit sign of the nominative
*singular*, has been adopted in English as part of the root.  Life would
be so much simpler for us pedants if the -s had been left behind; we
could then have, for example, <vertec> and <vertecs>.)

-- 
Anton Sherwood  --  br0### [at] p0b0xcom  --  http://ogre.nu/

Post a reply to this message