 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <cja### [at] netplex aussieorg>,
cja### [at] earthlinknet says...
> Considering the lack of interest I'm seeing in this
I think it sounds interesting and more useful that the current blob
system, but then I am one of the people that refuses to compile this sort
of thing myself. I don't do that sort of thing often, I have had bad
experiences with stuff that the authors claimed was 'all ready, just type
blah... and it will work', I don't trust my system to not have dependency
problems that being Windows I might have a snowball's chance in hell of
fixing properly. For me, it is either a working patched version of the
binary or nothing. I suspect others feel much the same.
I also believe that as much documentation as possible is a necessity. One
reason I don't try to compile my own versions is that I don't know C very
well and the POV source looks like bloody greek to me. I have neither the
time nor the patience to wander through pages of someone else's code
trying to figure out what the hell it does, because the designer doesn't
document it or the use of its features completely. You may consider it a
waste of time, but if you aim for the lowest common denominator (the
people that haven't a single clue what is going on), then no one will be
cursing you for it. If you instead assume that everyone that will use it
has nearly the same knowledge you do, then even your equals will curse
your name for not giving a better explanation of what 'you' chose to do,
because 'they' would might have done it completely differently.
--
void main () {
call functional_code()
else
call crash_windows();
}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff wrote:
> Was I wrong in thinking there were people interested in this?
>
> It's odd, there've been other threads about improving the blob object,
> exponential blobs, etc. But now that there's an actual working patch
> fixing several of these problems, there's not even a hint of interest?
>
Well, I was actually waiting for someone to come up with a better
blob because each time I model some blob object, I was unhappy with
these somewhat ugly lines caused by the linear falloff function.
I was happy when I read that you released you patch finally but
after seeing that I'd have to download more than 1Mb with my
slow modem, I decided to wait for the next MegaPov version...
So really, there _are_ people who are interested in the blob2
and if it is faster than isosurface, I'd apreciate that much because
rendering time is an issue for animations.
Regards,
Wolfgang
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3f1db4da@news.povray.org>, Wolfgang Wieser <wwi### [at] gmxde>
wrote:
> Well, I was actually waiting for someone to come up with a better
> blob because each time I model some blob object, I was unhappy with
> these somewhat ugly lines caused by the linear falloff function.
This seems to be a common misconception...the blob falloff function is
not linear. The function given in the documentation is:
strength*(1 - (distance/radius)^2)^2
The problem is that it has non-0 second derivative when distance/radius
equals 0, which is at the very edges of the blob components where the
function gets chopped off. Because of this, while the surface is
continuous, it has abrupt changes in curvature. The function I used for
the blob2 object is:
((6*r - 15)*r + 10)*r*r*r
which is equivalent to:
6*r^5 - 15*r^4 + 10*r^3
with r = distance/radius in the first equation. It has a second
derivative which is 0 at r = 1, and seems to give a more fluid, less
chunky looking shape as well. This function actually comes from a recent
update to the Perlin noise algorithm which fixed a similar problem that
resulted in grid artifacts.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff wrote:
> Considering the lack of interest I'm seeing in this,
If you want to raise interest, SHOW PICTURES to the public, in pbi.
Within a few days, many people will show interest, and as soon as
someone decides to compile a Windows (the most widely used platform
for POV-Ray, simply) binary, these many people will actually
be USING the patch.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3f1df3cc@news.povray.org>,
Fabien Mosen <fab### [at] skynetbe> wrote:
> > Considering the lack of interest I'm seeing in this,
>
> If you want to raise interest, SHOW PICTURES to the public, in pbi.
I did put pictures up, and gave links in my original message. Uploading
anything substantial is a pain on this connection...I don't even read
povray.binaries.images regularly. Again, here are the pictures:
2 sphere-capped cylinders and 2 hard-edged cylinders:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/temp/blob2.png
A sphere and 3 torus components:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/temp/blob2_2.png
And here's some comparisons with the blob primitive. A 4-sphere
tetrahedron, using the same blob components for both:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/temp/tetrablob.png
And the blob tweaked to be as similar to the blob2 as possible:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/temp/tetrablob2.png
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff wrote:
> > If you want to raise interest, SHOW PICTURES to the public, in pbi.
>
> I did put pictures up, and gave links in my original message. Uploading
> anything substantial is a pain on this connection...I don't even read
> povray.binaries.images regularly. Again, here are the pictures:
From a software engineering perspective, your images are technically
suffecient to portray the function of your patch but from a purely
artistic point of view they lack the "shock and awe" valued needed
to sell it. A little artistic creativity will go a long way...
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff wrote:
> In article <3f1df3cc@news.povray.org>,
> Fabien Mosen <fab### [at] skynetbe> wrote:
>
>
>>>Considering the lack of interest I'm seeing in this,
>>
>>If you want to raise interest, SHOW PICTURES to the public, in pbi.
>
>
> I did put pictures up, and gave links in my original message.
OK, sorry, I've read the announcement on POV-Ray's homepage,
which doesn't give the links.
Do you want/allow me to post these images in pbi ?
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3f1e1e7a$1@news.povray.org>,
Fabien Mosen <fab### [at] skynetbe> wrote:
> OK, sorry, I've read the announcement on POV-Ray's homepage,
> which doesn't give the links.
Hmm, I guess I should have written a separate, more complete
announcement for that...
> Do you want/allow me to post these images in pbi ?
If you want...as Ken mentioned, they aren't much, just showing some of
the differences from the original blob shape.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3F1### [at] pacbellnet>, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet>
wrote:
> From a software engineering perspective, your images are technically
> suffecient to portray the function of your patch but from a purely
> artistic point of view they lack the "shock and awe" valued needed
> to sell it. A little artistic creativity will go a long way...
Heh...well, they were created either to test components or to compare
blob and blob2. I've actually never done anything artistic with blobs.
(Aside from an early version of isocacti.pov which used blobs for rocks)
I'll try to come up with some better demo scenes for the next release.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff wrote:
> The problem is that it has non-0 second derivative when distance/radius
> equals 0, which is at the very edges of the blob components where the
> function gets chopped off. Because of this, while the surface is
> continuous, it has abrupt changes in curvature.
>
That's what I mean -- these "abrupt changes in curvature" when looking
at the blobs. It needs to get fixed.
> 6*r^5 - 15*r^4 + 10*r^3
>
> with r = distance/radius in the first equation. It has a second
> derivative which is 0 at r = 1, and seems to give a more fluid, less
> chunky looking shape as well.
>
I see. Thanks for pointing that out.
Wolfgang
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
