>Reasoning:  Take a heightfield.  Paste it onto the object.  Scale the
>object.  A normal applied to an object should act like this.


Aha! We think alike! This is what I was trying to say in my reply.

Post a reply to this message

1) A
2) A
3) A
4) A
5) A
6) A
A) A
B) A
C) A
D) A

And I think I will use MegaPov very soon.


Merry Christmas


Philippe

Post a reply to this message

Nathan Kopp wrote:
> 
> I am wondering what people really think about how normals and scaling should
> work.  If you're interested in this topic, please see this page and take the
> 'surface normal survey'.  You can reply by emailing me or reply to this
> post.
> 
> http://nathan.kopp.com/normals.htm
> 
> -Nathan

for object{ box{...normal{...} scale<x,y,z>} it definitely should
act the same as if the normal were real geometry.

So 1-A, 2-B, 3-A

If only the normal is scaled, it's more of a tricky question.
I think I'd have to go with scaling the pattern but not the depth
though I'm not real happy about that because it's inconsistent.

4-B, 5-B, 6-B
but still with reservations :(

Anyway, it's good to get all this thrashed out before any more
patching gets done.

Cheers, PoD.

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Juha <war### [at] punarastascstutfi> wrote...

>   The tricky part is what happens with the other sides of the box.
> Unfortunately you didn't show them in the pictures, so I can't judge.
> Since we are scaling more in the x and z directions, the slopes in the
> sides of the box should get deeper (and the pattern "squeezed" in the y
> direction due to the scale, of course), as a heightfield applied to the
> sides of the box would. Does it do this?

Yes, it does to this.

> 3: A
> 
>   This is the same as question 2 but in the other direction. If it works
> like 2, then it's ok.

It does work like 2.

>   I don't think that there's any difference between these and the three
> previous.

I agree.

>   If megapov already works this way, then I apologize for my behaviour.

I encourage you to test it with these examples.

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

TonyB <ben### [at] panamaphoenixnet> wrote...
> *If you scale the object (uniformly), all the attributes of the object
> should look the same, ie: you zoom out the appropriate ammount, and it
looks
> the same.
> *If you scale the normal (uniformly), the normal should scale, but the
depth
> remain the same. To control depth, use bump_size.
> *If you scale the object (non-uniformly), all the attributes of the object
> should fit in the same space as before scaling, ie: like if they were
pasted
> to it and squished or stretched with it.
> *If you scale the normal (non-uniformly), the normal should squish or
> stretch, with the depth remaining the same. Again, to control depth, use
> bump_size.

This would be very difficult to implement in the existing code.  I do hope
that this is not the rule-set that is agreed upon.  But I do see your logic
and agree at least somewhat.  ;-)

> 6) None of the above. Here, it should stretch in the y direction, but the
> depth should remain the same.

The top of the box has a normal of 'y' so stretching it in the Y direction
should leave it
the same (well, maybe the pattern changes a bit).

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

You are totally right! This is the good way to find the good behavior.

Fabian.

Mark Wagner wrote:
> 
> My answers:
> 
> 1) A
> 2) B
> 3) A
> 4) A
> 5) B
> 6) A
> 
> Reasoning:  Take a heightfield.  Paste it onto the object.  Scale the
> object.  A normal applied to an object should act like this.
> 
> Mark

Post a reply to this message

I agree with TonyB.

It is my understanding that bump_size has a single vector that scales the bumps
the same amount in x, y & z vectors.

Shouldn't the bump_size have x, y & z vectors - or does it already?

- Tony


Nathan Kopp wrote:

> TonyB <ben### [at] panamaphoenixnet> wrote...
> > *If you scale the object (uniformly), all the attributes of the object
> > should look the same, ie: you zoom out the appropriate ammount, and it
> looks
> > the same.
> > *If you scale the normal (uniformly), the normal should scale, but the
> depth
> > remain the same. To control depth, use bump_size.
> > *If you scale the object (non-uniformly), all the attributes of the object
> > should fit in the same space as before scaling, ie: like if they were
> pasted
> > to it and squished or stretched with it.
> > *If you scale the normal (non-uniformly), the normal should squish or
> > stretch, with the depth remaining the same. Again, to control depth, use
> > bump_size.
>
> This would be very difficult to implement in the existing code.  I do hope
> that this is not the rule-set that is agreed upon.  But I do see your logic
> and agree at least somewhat.  ;-)
>
> > 6) None of the above. Here, it should stretch in the y direction, but the
> > depth should remain the same.
>
> The top of the box has a normal of 'y' so stretching it in the Y direction
> should leave it
> the same (well, maybe the pattern changes a bit).
>
> -Nathan

Post a reply to this message

Tony Vigil <tvi### [at] emc-inccom> wrote ...
> I agree with TonyB.
>
> It is my understanding that bump_size has a single vector that scales the
bumps
> the same amount in x, y & z vectors.
>

Actually, bump_size is a single scalar that scales the bumps only in the
direction of the surface normal.

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 21:51:08 -0500, "Nathan Kopp" <Nat### [at] Koppcom> wrote:

>I am wondering what people really think about how normals and scaling should
>work.  If you're interested in this topic, please see this page and take the
>'surface normal survey'. 

1  A
2  B
3  A
4  A
5  B
6  A

I get strange results from normal { crackle } in MegaPatch.
See posting in p.b.i.
------------
dav### [at] cwcomnet
http://www.hamiltonite.mcmail.com
------------

Post a reply to this message

>1) A
>2) A
>3) A
>4) A
>5) A
>6) A
>A) A
>B) A
>C) A
>D) A


Are you Canadian, per chance? ;)

Post a reply to this message