nemesis nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/12 22:28:
> I can't help but ask why, why not simply normals?  it's not even a close up...
> 
> there's enough issues with coincident surfaces in plain CSG, put isosurfaces to
> the mix and you're asking for trouble...
> 
> 
Normals would give you different results, the sadows would be different, as well 
as the continuation between the different surfaces. That's even if you apply the 
normals to the object as a whole. Even at this scale you'd have large difference.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
REMEMBER: WHATEVER HAPPENS, HAPPENS FOR A REASON.

Post a reply to this message

jhu wrote:
> Wow! Thanks for the help and tips. That's some serious isosurface-kung-fu there.

I think Tim gave you the best solution to your problem, so I'll take 
this opportunity to slip out the door :)

Sam

Post a reply to this message

I think I'm going to give up on the isosurface room. Rendering takes way too
long especially with area lights and radiosity. On the other hand, I did get to
finally learn how to use these things.

BTW, is there an isosurface to mesh2 conversion utility?

Post a reply to this message

Wasn't it jhu who wrote:

>BTW, is there an isosurface to mesh2 conversion utility?

There's Kevin Loney's Approximation Macro. It's rather slow but you only 
need to run it once, then you can save the mesh.

http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/isotut/approx.htm

If you can rewrite your isosurface as a parametric, then you can use 
Ingo Janssen's Param.Inc, which is much faster.

http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/isotut/param.htm

-- 
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure

Post a reply to this message