 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here is an index to 100 superellipsoid shapes.
The values range from <1, 0.1 to 1> to <0.1, 0.1 to 1> starting
at the top left to right ending with the bottom left to right.
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbell net
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'suprlips.pov.txt' (8 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Here is an index to 100 superellipsoid shapes.
> The values range from <1, 0.1 to 1> to <0.1, 0.1 to 1> starting
> at the top left to right ending with the bottom left to right.
If anyone is otherwise interested, the range is not 0 to 1 but 0
to how ever high POV can compute. 2,2 is two pyramids base to
base. Higher numbers start looking like jacks without the balls
on the tips.
--
http://members.aol.com/jull43
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Matt Giuer wrote:
>
> > Here is an index to 100 superellipsoid shapes.
>
> > The values range from <1, 0.1 to 1> to <0.1, 0.1 to 1> starting
> > at the top left to right ending with the bottom left to right.
>
> If anyone is otherwise interested, the range is not 0 to 1 but 0
> to how ever high POV can compute. 2,2 is two pyramids base to
> base. Higher numbers start looking like jacks without the balls
> on the tips.
>
> --
> http://members.aol.com/jull43
I choose that range because it fit the screen better and for no other
reason. Anymore and you could not tell the shapes the objects were
taking and that was the point of the exersize in the first place.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Not to mention the negative values possible (oops!)
Since I did though, two negatives don't seem to work, as in <-1,-1>, but
<1,-1> is okay (or is it <-1,1>?). Mike Hough was doing these kinds of
shapes a while back.
Ken wrote:
>
> Matt Giuer wrote:
> >
> > > Here is an index to 100 superellipsoid shapes.
> >
> > > The values range from <1, 0.1 to 1> to <0.1, 0.1 to 1> starting
> > > at the top left to right ending with the bottom left to right.
> >
> > If anyone is otherwise interested, the range is not 0 to 1 but 0
> > to how ever high POV can compute. 2,2 is two pyramids base to
> > base. Higher numbers start looking like jacks without the balls
> > on the tips.
> >
> > --
> > http://members.aol.com/jull43
>
> I choose that range because it fit the screen better and for no other
> reason. Anymore and you could not tell the shapes the objects were
> taking and that was the point of the exersize in the first place.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?PoV
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
