"Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote:
>
> Actually, scaling the radial pattern does work, but has no visible effect.
> For instance, if you scale a pattern by 2 to make it twice as big, then the
> value of the pattern at, say, <1,1,1> is now moved to <2,2,2> (twice as far
> away from the origin). But in the radial pattern, the values at these two
> spots are already the same, since they are at the same angle around the
> y-axis! So nothing changes.
>

Ah, yes.  A moment's thought reveals this to be obvious.  OOPS!   :-)


Alain <electro.punk [at] netscapenet> wrote:

      > Scale alters the size of the pattern. It can have different values
      > for all 3 axis.
      > Frequency alters the COLOR_MAP used, making it repeat itself several
      > times as the pattern's value goes from 0 to 1.
      >
      > --
      > Alain

     > ... and Kenneth wrote...
     > Not sure if I'm understanding the difference; do you mean that
     > FREQUENCY
     > only alters the color_map along one or two axes, wheras SCALE alters
     > everything in 3?

Uh, my brain is working better now! (I think.)  Of course, SCALE alters
everything along all axes equally. Wheras FREQUENCY simply sets the number
of times the set of colors in the color_map is repeated over a "unit
square," and along only one axis (??). Which IS mentioned in the docs. So
I'm
assuming that since scale works along 3 axes and frequency along only 1 (?),
the "banding" I'm seeing is a result of  this "spatial" difference?  Having
a bit of a hard time visualizing this, and how the final pattern turns out
differently.

The points raised here make me wonder if, in fact, the use of FREQUENCY
should be suggested for only a few special cases, with SCALE being the main
scaling suggestion instead. (At least for patterns that it has a visible
effect on!) All told, FREQUENCY introduces "changes" that SCALE doesn't.

Ken

Post a reply to this message