 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3f1df3cc@news.povray.org>,
Fabien Mosen <fab### [at] skynet be> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff wrote:
> . . . . The function I used for the blob2 object is:
>
> ((6*r - 15)*r + 10)*r*r*r
Why quintic? All we absolutely need is
f(0) = 1
f(1) = f'(1) = f''(1) = 0
for which (1-r)^3 would do; were you also trying to fit the traditional
curve?
--
Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3f84f22f$1@news.povray.org>, Anton Sherwood <new### [at] ogrenu>
wrote:
> > ((6*r - 15)*r + 10)*r*r*r
>
> Why quintic?
This function is used in several other places as well, such as the
recent updates to Perlin noise. It's not something I came up with.
> All we absolutely need is
> f(0) = 1
> f(1) = f'(1) = f''(1) = 0
No, you also need f'(0) = f"(0) = 0
> for which (1-r)^3 would do; were you also trying to fit the traditional
> curve?
(1-r)^3 doesn't even remotely resemble the old-style curve. I wasn't
trying to "fit" it, but I did want something that was somewhat similar.
--
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:
> Anton Sherwood <new### [at] ogrenu> wrote:
>>> ((6*r - 15)*r + 10)*r*r*r
>>
>> Why quintic?
>
> This function is used in several other places as well, such as the
> recent updates to Perlin noise. It's not something I came up with.
Ah.
I imagine that would have more constraints.
>> All we absolutely need is
>> f(0) = 1
>> f(1) = f'(1) = f''(1) = 0
>
> No, you also need f'(0) = f"(0) = 0
Why? That point is never on the surface (unless, I guess, another
component with greater and opposite strength is in just the right place).
And shouldn't f''(0) be negative rather than zero?
We also want f'(t)<0 for 0<t<1, but that's almost automatic with a
polynomial of low degree that fits the other constraints. ;)
>> for which (1-r)^3 would do; were you also trying to fit
>> the traditional curve?
>
> (1-r)^3 doesn't even remotely resemble the old-style curve. I wasn't
> trying to "fit" it, but I did want something that was somewhat similar.
(1-rr)^3, then, and you get f'(0)=0 for free. ;)
...It occurs to me that my remarks may seem hostile in tone.
Please be assured that it is none of my intent.
--
Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3f863fc0@news.povray.org>, Anton Sherwood <new### [at] ogrenu>
wrote:
> > (1-r)^3 doesn't even remotely resemble the old-style curve. I wasn't
> > trying to "fit" it, but I did want something that was somewhat similar.
>
> (1-rr)^3, then, and you get f'(0)=0 for free. ;)
You may be right, I will have to do more tests when I have time. I do
like the shape given by the quintic curve.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
