 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Can anyone point me in the right direction here ?
I'll need to use some rounded rectangles in a scene i'm working on... i
figure i could either build it with CSG somehow [not really too good with
csg yet...] or use a very flat superellipsoid... possibly even use csg with
a superellipsoid if needed. Is there some easier way to do this ? i'm just
curious as to how a more advanced user would do this. :]
thanks in advance !
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Best bet is an f_rounded_box isosurface. You can find a sample here:
http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/isotut/builtin1.htm
--
Doug Eichenberg
www.getinfo.net/douge
dou### [at] nls net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3f25c935$1@news.povray.org>,
"Jake McDowell" <mcn### [at] techiecom> wrote:
> Can anyone point me in the right direction here ?
>
> I'll need to use some rounded rectangles in a scene i'm working on... i
> figure i could either build it with CSG somehow [not really too good with
> csg yet...] or use a very flat superellipsoid... possibly even use csg with
> a superellipsoid if needed. Is there some easier way to do this ? i'm just
> curious as to how a more advanced user would do this. :]
>
> thanks in advance !
>
>
You, uh, might look in shapes.inc, at round_box ( ) ?
--
Dawn McKnight d-m### [at] spamlesscoxnet
USS Nautilus cooperative writing project:
http://members.cox.net/uss_nautilus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Isosurfaces are slow. Going with a CSG version
is better for a beginner.
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
> Best bet is an f_rounded_box isosurface. You can find a sample here:
>
> http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/isotut/builtin1.htm
>
> --
> Doug Eichenberg
> www.getinfo.net/douge
> dou### [at] nlsnet
>
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18.07.2003
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 09:17:51 +0200, "Tim Nikias v2.0" <tim### [at] gmxde>
wrote:
> Isosurfaces are slow. Going with a CSG version
> is better for a beginner.
As far as I remember earlier discussions rounded box is _faster_ when made as
isosurface (which of course is otherwise in case of other shapes) and one
isosurface takes less memory than csg. Otherwise I doubt Gilles work
http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2001-12-31/gt_asia.jpg could have in its
description: "Rounded isosurface boxes were used whenever possible."
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Okay, THAT isosurface is faster, I'll believe your word
on that. Still, for a beginner who isn't really used to
using CSG, I'd say: let him practice that first. It really
is needed for POV-Ray.
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
> > Isosurfaces are slow. Going with a CSG version
> > is better for a beginner.
>
> As far as I remember earlier discussions rounded box is _faster_ when made
as
> isosurface (which of course is otherwise in case of other shapes) and one
> isosurface takes less memory than csg. Otherwise I doubt Gilles work
> http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2001-12-31/gt_asia.jpg could have in
its
> description: "Rounded isosurface boxes were used whenever possible."
>
> ABX
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18.07.2003
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
