But the slope pattern does indeed work with heightfields that are more than
1 unit high, so all this scaling trouble is rather pointless isn't it?

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated March 29)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:3af01d83$1@news.povray.org...
> But the slope pattern does indeed work with heightfields that are more
than
> 1 unit high, so all this scaling trouble is rather pointless isn't it?
>

<very small voice>yes, mr rune</very small voice>

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:
:> But when you scaled the height field to it's proper height, the textures
:> would still be stretched along the y axis.

: That's what I thought. Warp, can you confirm, or have I/we missed something?

  It depends on how you use the slope pattern, but yes, in many cases this
can happen.

-- 
#local D=array[6]{11117333955,7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330}
#local I=0;#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I],13),8)-3,10>#end
blob{#while(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2
pigment{rgb M()}}#local I=(D[I]>99?I:I+1);#end}               /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

"Tom Melly" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
> > But the slope pattern does indeed work with
> > heightfields that are more than 1 unit high,
> > so all this scaling trouble is rather
> > pointless isn't it?
>
> <very small voice>yes, mr rune</very small voice>

Hehe, I can understand that you want to have things cleared out, I just
wanted to make sure you knew it wasn't a real problem. :)

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated March 29)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message

Thanks for your help Rune! I think I mostly understand it now. This
definitely has to get into 3.5 to help those POVers who are stuck like me...
Anybody have the address for the POV-Team?

Post a reply to this message

"Tony[B]" wrote:

> Anybody have the address for the POV-Team?

I do :)

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Mind you, if the 'pigment_pattern' statement makes it into v3.5 it would
probably be worth removing the convoluted extended syntax from 'slope'.
You can do exactly the same effects with pigment_pattern and it is as
easy to understand as the extended slope syntax. 

I only tacked the extended syntax on to Hans Detlev-Fink's original
slope concept because no-one had implemented anything like the
pigment_pattern at that time. If we have pigment_pattern to do this (and
many other clever effects) in v3.5 then the extended slope syntax is
pointless and should be depreciated.

It pains me to say this about my only real contribution to The Cause but
...

Bye for now,
	Mike Andrews.

"Tony[B]" wrote:
> 
> Thanks for your help Rune! I think I mostly understand it now. This
> definitely has to get into 3.5 to help those POVers who are stuck like me...
> Anybody have the address for the POV-Team?

Post a reply to this message

Michael Andrews wrote:
> 
> Mind you, if the 'pigment_pattern' statement makes it into v3.5 it would
> probably be worth removing the convoluted extended syntax from 'slope'.
> You can do exactly the same effects with pigment_pattern and it is as
> easy to understand as the extended slope syntax.
> 
> I only tacked the extended syntax on to Hans Detlev-Fink's original
> slope concept because no-one had implemented anything like the
> pigment_pattern at that time. If we have pigment_pattern to do this (and
> many other clever effects) in v3.5 then the extended slope syntax is
> pointless and should be depreciated.
> 
> It pains me to say this about my only real contribution to The Cause but
> ...

Yes, it's a pitty. Now that I understand everything at last. ;-)

-Hans-

Post a reply to this message

"Michael Andrews" wrote:
> Mind you, if the 'pigment_pattern' statement makes it
> into v3.5 it would probably be worth removing the
> convoluted extended syntax from 'slope'. You can do
> exactly the same effects with pigment_pattern and it
> as as easy to understand as the extended slope syntax.

Do you mean by using an average between a slope pigment and a gradient
pigment, or is there an easier way?

If that's what you mean, then yes, it might be as easy to understand, but
it'd take up many more lines of code to achieve the same effect and you'd
have to do some calculations to be able to control it as well.

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated March 29)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message

Michael Andrews wrote:
> 
> Mind you, if the 'pigment_pattern' statement makes it into v3.5 it would
> probably be worth removing the convoluted extended syntax from 'slope'.
> You can do exactly the same effects with pigment_pattern and it is as
> easy to understand as the extended slope syntax.
> 
> I only tacked the extended syntax on to Hans Detlev-Fink's original
> slope concept because no-one had implemented anything like the
> pigment_pattern at that time. If we have pigment_pattern to do this (and
> many other clever effects) in v3.5 then the extended slope syntax is
> pointless and should be depreciated.
> 

There already was a discussion on that matter some time ago:

Subject: slope-dependent pattern
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:40:41
From: "Nathan Kopp" <Nat### [at] Koppcom>
Newsgroups: povray.unofficial.patches

I still think the extended syntax is worth keeping, but it would not be an
enormous problem if it is removed IMO.  I never made a speed comparison
between extended slope pattern and the average-pigment_pattern construct,
but it probably will be slower at least to some extend.  Since the pattern
is often used for texturing (isosurface) landscapes, speed might be quite
an important argument.

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message