"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> I can't help but ask why, why not simply normals? it's not even a close up...
>
> there's enough issues with coincident surfaces in plain CSG, put isosurfaces to
> the mix and you're asking for trouble...
I was intending to use isosurfaces because they should blend in better,
especially under the arch. With normals (procedural or bump_maps) there's still
a sharp demarcation between the wall and the arch.
Post a reply to this message
|
