|
 |
On 13 Jan 2003 19:39:06 -0500, "Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <raf### [at] raf256 com> wrote:
> > Sure, you can. So what is the first? I have also some isosurface
> > related ideas and I would like to listen your proposition before
> > coding anything.
>
> Most simple - to buid complex bounding boxes, or rather bounding shapes.
> And to use 2 shapes. Bound and InnerBound.
Full intersection test is required to get normal, so it means your proposition
is useles for reflections and camera rays (and probably for photons). It might
be worth to test your proposition of curiosity for shadow tests (of all
objects, not only isosurfaces) but then I do not know how it should behave for
inverted objects and/or csg. Also the problem is that images are usually
focused on object itself and not on its shadow, micro-shadows made by
displaced isosurface on itself are hard to catch by such 'inner bounding'.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
