Chris Huff wrote in message ...
> > I suggest that we begin to think of the possibilities of implementing
> > such functions. I personally believe that it could improve POV-Ray
> > significantly in some of the areas where it is currently not as
> > powerful as many other renderers.
>
> You're a little late...Wlodzimierz ABX Skiba

simpler is write just ABX :-)

> has already been working on
> a deform patch, which apparently can work on all objects

I have changed my previous syntax for simpler usage I think

instead next object in pov syntax I have putted deform into object modifiers
in example :

ttf {
  "arial.ttf" , "Hello world" 0, 1
  texture { ... }
  transform { translate rotate etc.. }
  deform { TYPE PARAMS }
  :
  :
}

also declaration of deforms will be available just like declaration of
transformations, textures or other things

#declare BestTwist = deform { twist .5 }

object {
  MyBox
  texture { MyTexture }
  deform { BestTwist }
}

Every deformation will be defined as something like pattern in pigments : twist,
envelope, curve, stretch etc followed parameters. I plan implement functions as
type of deformations after 3.5 release (I wait for specification of functions) -
deform{function{...}}

Rune's proposition of control points could be possible as part of this stuff but
... I thought about deformation depends of distance point to the bezier patch or
sth

current state of deform patch : geometry works fine, now I play with deformation
of atributes of textures applied to object

ABX

Post a reply to this message

In article <3a5adc40$1@news.povray.org>, "Wlodzimierz ABX Skiba" 
<abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:

> > You're a little late...Wlodzimierz ABX Skiba
> 
> simpler is write just ABX :-)

I often copy-paste my own name... :-)


> I have changed my previous syntax for simpler usage I think
> 
> instead next object in pov syntax I have putted deform into object 
> modifiers

This does look like a better syntax. If your technique allowed warps to 
be used as deformations, it would be perfect...maybe a compromise would 
be a "deform" warp, but there will be a lot of duplication, since people 
will want deforms that do the same things as many of the warps.
Is your technique still limited to deformations that can be "reversed"?

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message

Chris Huff wrote in message ...
> This does look like a better syntax. If your technique allowed warps to
> be used as deformations, it would be perfect...maybe a compromise would
> be a "deform" warp, but there will be a lot of duplication, since people
> will want deforms that do the same things as many of the warps.
> Is your technique still limited to deformations that can be "reversed"?


yes I think there is compromise between my deform and warps
every deform has defined methods just like methods for objects
this way there could be simple to write type of warp
warp { deform { TYPE PARAMS } }
which call method not assigned to object
and calculate coordinates without duplication of code

I'll check it before release of patch

ABX

Post a reply to this message