Hi, blender has a box type blob object besides standard capsule (cylinder)
ellipsoid and sphere. Does any povray version allow the same?  If not, or
without a workaround, this is a feature request. :-)

Post a reply to this message

Am 09.08.2017 um 22:50 schrieb Mr:
> Hi, blender has a box type blob object besides standard capsule (cylinder)
> ellipsoid and sphere. Does any povray version allow the same?  If not, or
> without a workaround, this is a feature request. :-)

Then a feature request it is ;)

Post a reply to this message

"Mr" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Hi, blender has a box type blob object besides standard capsule (cylinder)
> ellipsoid and sphere. Does any povray version allow the same?  If not, or
> without a workaround, this is a feature request. :-)

I'm intrigued about this. Could you provide some more information? Any links? I
would like to see how far I am from being able to write a macro for this
purpose. Thank you.

B. Gimeno

Post a reply to this message

"B. Gimeno" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Mr" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > Hi, blender has a box type blob object besides standard capsule (cylinder)
> > ellipsoid and sphere. Does any povray version allow the same?  If not, or
> > without a workaround, this is a feature request. :-)
>
> I'm intrigued about this. Could you provide some more information? Any links? I
> would like to see how far I am from being able to write a macro for this
> purpose. Thank you.
>
> B. Gimeno

hi,
In Blender, you add new objects to a scene by hitting SHIFT+A in the 3d view and
choose metaball (Blender's blob equivalent) in the submenu pick Cube (Blender's
"box" equivalent)

Post a reply to this message

Well, at the moment I can't see any exit to the limits that the syntax 
of blob in pov-ray imposes. I have not achieved anything acceptable, 
except a certain resentment against those sticky forms.

Regards.
B. Gimeno

Post a reply to this message

Am 10.08.2017 um 15:15 schrieb bgimeno:
> 
> Well, at the moment I can't see any exit to the limits that the syntax
> of blob in pov-ray imposes. I have not achieved anything acceptable,
> except a certain resentment against those sticky forms.

POV-Ray's blobs are indeed currently too limited to do that job. You'd
need to resort to isosurfaces for that purpose.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 10.08.2017 um 15:15 schrieb bgimeno:
> >
> > Well, at the moment I can't see any exit to the limits that the syntax
> > of blob in pov-ray imposes. I have not achieved anything acceptable,
> > except a certain resentment against those sticky forms.
>
> POV-Ray's blobs are indeed currently too limited to do that job. You'd
> need to resort to isosurfaces for that purpose.

Except an isosurface cube probably won't merge with a blob yet, will it?

Post a reply to this message

"Mr" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

> > POV-Ray's blobs are indeed currently too limited to do that job. You'd
> > need to resort to isosurfaces for that purpose.
>
> Except an isosurface cube probably won't merge with a blob yet, will it?


I think he means the way to blob-together isosurface functions as described in
the docs  (2.3.3.3.6 Combining isosurface functions):

Apart from basic CSG you can also obtain smooth transits between the different
surfaces, for instance the blob object:
  #declare Blob_Threshold=0.01;

  isosurface {
    function {
      (1+Blob_Threshold)
      -pow(Blob_Threshold, fn_A(x,y,z))
      -pow(Blob_Threshold, fn_B(x,y,z))
    }
    max_gradient 4
    contained_by { box { -2, 2 } }
  }


The Blob_Threshold value influences the smoothness of the transit between the
shapes. A lower value leads to sharper edges, and it's function looks like:
function{fn_A(x,y,z) + pow(Blob_Threshold,(fn_B(x,y,z) + Strength))}

Post a reply to this message

Am 16.08.2017 um 01:15 schrieb Mr:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 10.08.2017 um 15:15 schrieb bgimeno:
>>>
>>> Well, at the moment I can't see any exit to the limits that the syntax
>>> of blob in pov-ray imposes. I have not achieved anything acceptable,
>>> except a certain resentment against those sticky forms.
>>
>> POV-Ray's blobs are indeed currently too limited to do that job. You'd
>> need to resort to isosurfaces for that purpose.
> 
> Except an isosurface cube probably won't merge with a blob yet, will it?

No, but the other way round is now possible: A blob can be turned into a
`potential` pattern, a pattern can be turned into a function, and a
function can be combined with other isosurface functions such as that of
a "blob box" isosurface.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 16.08.2017 um 01:15 schrieb Mr:
> > clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> >> Am 10.08.2017 um 15:15 schrieb bgimeno:
> >>>
> >>> Well, at the moment I can't see any exit to the limits that the syntax
> >>> of blob in pov-ray imposes. I have not achieved anything acceptable,
> >>> except a certain resentment against those sticky forms.
> >>
> >> POV-Ray's blobs are indeed currently too limited to do that job. You'd
> >> need to resort to isosurfaces for that purpose.
> >
> > Except an isosurface cube probably won't merge with a blob yet, will it?
>
> No, but the other way round is now possible: A blob can be turned into a
> `potential` pattern, a pattern can be turned into a function, and a
> function can be combined with other isosurface functions such as that of
> a "blob box" isosurface.

Every blob converted to a function... Why not have povray do it all the time
under the hood so that these two types of entities get compatible with
eachother?

Post a reply to this message