 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Each time through the wrinkles normal calculation, the calculated perturbation
is forced positive using fabs(), and at the end is always added to the original
normal. This will introduce a gradient, but it's not clear to me how it could be
removed without altering the overall character of the wrinkles normal.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Carlo C." <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht
news:web.49b59544f0f85f5868b24cc70@news.povray.org...
> And Dents:
>
> * 3.5.11.12 Dents
> When used as a normal pattern, this pattern uses a specialized normal
> perturbation function. *
>
And this is also said for waves and ripples....
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tom York" <alp### [at] zubenelgenubi 34spcom> wrote:
> Each time through the wrinkles normal calculation, the calculated perturbation
> is forced positive using fabs(), and at the end is always added to the original
> normal. This will introduce a gradient, but it's not clear to me how it could be
> removed without altering the overall character of the wrinkles normal.
If the pertubation "amplitude" was known, shouldn't subtracting half of it do
the job?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Tom York" <alp### [at] zubenelgenubi34spcom> wrote:
> > Each time through the wrinkles normal calculation, the calculated perturbation
> > is forced positive using fabs(), and at the end is always added to the original
> > normal. This will introduce a gradient, but it's not clear to me how it could be
> > removed without altering the overall character of the wrinkles normal.
>
> If the pertubation "amplitude" was known, shouldn't subtracting half of it do
> the job?
I will try it when I get time. I want to believe, but my instinct is to say that
it would only work if the perturbation function is linear.
Tom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
