"Trevor G Quayle" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Had a look at addressing the issue I was having with shallow angles picking up
> ridges.  I did some testing and found that this is a result of how trace works
> (on smooth meshes in particular).  The intersection returned is the intersection
> with the flat, unsmoothed surface of the mesh (unperturbed), whereas the surface
> normal returned is based on the smoothed surface normal at the point.  What
> happens is that very shallow traces end up intersecting with the mesh in some
> locations, particularly close to triangle edges.
>
> Following my simple solution #5, I added this capability into my current macro
> with good results.  See the attached image.   For reference, the model is 200
> units high, normal angle set to 85, control depth set to 20.  The first image is
> run with no offset.  Distinct artifacts and mesh lines can be seen, particularly
> the lines along the body and legs.  The second image uses the same parameters
> but with a offset of 0.1 with fairly favourable results.
>
> -tgq

Sorry to bore you all with my testing details...

Tested this modification again with my elephant model.  This is a good model as
it has very shallow details carved into it, but was showing up very dirty with
artifacts at low angles.

Model height = 200
Control depth = 20
Normal angle = 85

The first image is with no surface offset.  The results are very dirty and
contaminated with lots of artifacts.
The second image uses an offset of 0.1 with very much improved results.

One thought and spin-off of this is that I have been thinking I may be able to
adapt this for outside corners/ridges for wearing.

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'elefunk.jpg' (165 KB)

Preview of image 'elefunk.jpg'