 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I loaded the same file containing an isosurface with the noise3d
function into both super 3.1e and mega 0.3. They look very
differently. The source code and images are at p.b.i.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <388C5F52.712AE9B3@my-dejanews.com>,
gre### [at] my-dejanews com wrote:
> I loaded the same file containing an isosurface with the noise3d
> function into both super 3.1e and mega 0.3. They look very
> differently. The source code and images are at p.b.i.
Maybe it is the new normal calculation code, try adding "normal off" to
the isosurface. From the MacMegaPOV documentation:
"Technical notes on the function normal patch:
Apply accurate normal calculation to isosurfaces, parametrics, and
isoblobs by using the "normal" keyword (outside of a texture). This can
be followed by on/off, true/false, 1/0, etc. The default is to use
close approximation, the original method of choice for isosurfaces and
parametrics."
The documentation also mentions that it should probably be turned off
for functions using atan2 or noise3d.
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: TonyB-FSU
Subject: Re: Different isosurface appearance: megapov vs. superpatch
Date: 24 Jan 2000 16:59:34
Message: <388ccb46@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Maybe it is the new normal calculation code, try adding "normal off" to
> the isosurface. From the MacMegaPOV documentation:
I had not heard of that. It's silly when you step back and look at all the
trouble that normals have caused. :)
BTW, this is to test if I set this thing up right. I'm writing from FSU
(Panama Branch). I can't install POV. :( But at least I can check out the
newsgroups. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 16:04:09 -0600, TonyB-FSU wrote:
>> Maybe it is the new normal calculation code, try adding "normal off" to
>> the isosurface. From the MacMegaPOV documentation:
>
>I had not heard of that. It's silly when you step back and look at all the
>trouble that normals have caused. :)
It's part of the isoblob patch. It's also in the 3.1g superpatch. Those
two functions are not easily differentiated, which is why the new normal-
finding method fails on them.
That said, I would think the one that always works should be the default.
--
These are my opinions. I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
