William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> On 11/12/23 22:09, Bald Eagle wrote:
> > I'm guessing that you'll likely have to implement some debugging capability to
> > output or make visible the normal vectors.
> As always. Thanks for the references! Yes, related.
You're welcome. And thanks for confirming.
> Yes, your debugging capability for normals. It's been on my todo list
> for a while. I plan to implement it as a special pattern so I can return
> the perturbed normals in addition to the raw normals.
> I've already modified the yuqk aoi pattern to work with the full range
> -1 to +1 possible perturbed normals. I should try that now actually on
> the black ones... Ah, it didn't offer clue why things go black in the
> degenerate case - things are still black.
> I'll need to do some debugging I guess.
While you're in there digging around in the normal code, perhaps you can make
some notes about exactly HOW that all works. Normals seem to me like they'd
need a 2D modification (theta, r) rather than just a single scalar value.
That whole weird tetrahedron thing....
I also had a link to an external site/article, but can't find it atm.
A useful pattern would be something that would allow a function to return the
normal as a vector (and doesn't require the prior existence of an object surface
Also reminds me of the problem I still have to solve/work-around here:
Speaking of functions, I just threw up my hands and gave up on converting a
"simple" shader, because trying to convert that into SDL with functions blows up
into over 1000 lines of bloated code. As you know, there's a long list of
things that make the function parser unusable in such circumstances, so I won't
get into it .... here. ;)
Post a reply to this message