> They don't show up because this has been resized (and cropped). I don't
think
> it'd be max_trace, since the blob is opaque and nonreflective. Must be
some
> sort of math accuracy thing? I attached a clip of the large version to
show
> the spots.

try scaling your whole scene up by a factor of 10 or 100, it probably is
math accuracy

--
Rick

POV-Ray News & Resources - http://povray.co.uk
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://kitty5.com
Hi-Impact web site design & database driven e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA

Post a reply to this message

> Comments/criticisms please
>

'tis beautiful.

--John

Post a reply to this message

In article <3AB28A11.FF99E2B5@faricy.net>, David Fontaine 
<dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:

> They don't show up because this has been resized (and cropped). I don't 
> think it'd be max_trace, since the blob is opaque and nonreflective.

Maybe adjust the max_intersections value...it affects the number of 
intersections found when testing against an object. If it simply isn't 
finding the front surfaces of the blob because it's tested as many as it 
can, it might cause this artifact.

4.10.7  Max_Intersections
POV-Ray uses a set of internal stacks to collect ray/object intersection 
points. The usual maximum number of entries in these I-Stacks is 64. 
Complex scenes may cause these stacks to overflow. POV-Ray doesn't stop 
but it may incorrectly render your scene. When POV-Ray finishes 
rendering, a number of statistics are displayed. If you see I-Stack 
Overflows reported in the statistics you should increase the stack size. 
Add a global setting to your scene as follows:
global_settings { max_intersections  Integer }
If the I-Stack Overflows remain increase this value until they stop.

-- 
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

Thanks Christoph Rick and Chris for tips on the aritfacts. I'll have to check
into those.

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

Post a reply to this message

This is the set of transforms that was used to make this fractal...

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

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'determrule01.gif' (9 KB)

Preview of image 'determrule01.gif'

"David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote in message
news:3AB28F0D.DAFE0512@faricy.net...
> Nekar Xenos wrote:
>
> > Lovely!
>
> Thank you!
>
>
> > I've been thinking of using this self similar scaling technique you
> > described for Apolloniian packing. In 2d if you have 3 large circles
that
> > are not the same size but in a certain proportion that would result in
> > fitting exactly with sides touching when iterated at smaller sizes.
Almost
> > the same way that when you cut an A0 size pare in half you get A2 and so
on
> > until you get A4, A5 etc.  As far as I know appolonian packing has only
been
> > done starting with 3 equally sixed circles. The next step would be to do
> > this in 3d.
>
> I did a search for it and found, Start with a boundary and three circles
tangent
> to the boundary and each other. Then every gap left, make a maximum
dimatere
> circle in the middle, tangent to the three sides bounding the gap

The only problem is that it isn't always self similar in proportion. What I
want is a spcific proprtion of the circles that will make it self imilar
proportionally as well.

>I don't know how
> you'd do it in 3d though. Every sphere would be tangent to 4 surfaces I
would
> think, but you wouldn't be able to make them close off areas of empty
space like
> in 2d. Maybe it can't be done... :(
>
It's been done...
 I got this from Greg M Johnson
news://news.povray.org/3a4e9ea8@news.povray.org. It'll fill any objct with
spheres but it takes some time to parse. But the equal proportions would be
another story...

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

Post a reply to this message

> The only problem is that it isn't always self similar in proportion. What
I
> want is a spcific proprtion of the circles that will make it self imilar
> proportionally as well.

 Ugh! Major blunder! If it stayed the same proportion it would be a
sierpinski triangle...

Nekar

Post a reply to this message

David,

Cool pic. I shall have to download it and stick it on a
floppy and look at it properly on me other box.

16 colors doesn't do justice to anything but The Simpsons.

I hobble off...

Peter

Post a reply to this message

>I shall have to download it and stick it on a
>floppy and look at it properly on me other box.
Done. Woo. That's wicked wierd. I see another post
down a bit. I will check that.
Seriously. There is some funky as* sh*t  in their.
(Or maybe not. Perhaps it was all that pot I smoked in the '70s.)

Peter Warren

+++disclaimer+++
Drugs are bad. Drinking is (mostly) bad. Do good things. Do 'right.'

Post a reply to this message

Peter Warren wrote:

> Done. Woo. That's wicked wierd. I see another post
> down a bit. I will check that.
> Seriously. There is some funky as* sh*t  in their.

Word up. I'm all about fractals an' sh*t.


> (Or maybe not. Perhaps it was all that pot I smoked in the '70s.)

That would explain a lot. j/k :)


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

Post a reply to this message