"noam" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > noam <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > > I hope this is not breaking the rules, but here is the mesh (I cannot post
> > > attachments in this forum):
> >
> >   Ahem... I asked for a *minimal* example. Your mesh is nothing but.
> >
> >   (Asking for a minimal example is not just a question of laziness from
> > our part. In fact, often when you try to isolate the problem and get a
> > minimal example scene that demonstrates it, you find the problem yourself
> > exactly because of that. Even if you don't, it makes the chances of
> > someone else spotting the problem that much higher.)
> >
> > --
> >                                                           - Warp
>
> Hi,
> Of course, I totally understand this request and apologize for not complying :)
> But I cannot change the way the algorithm I use outputs the mesh (not the
> resolution etc.
> (If it interests you it is a variant of the marching cubes algorithm. The input
> is a given depth field, output is a mesh. I have no other depth field that
> creates these problems).
> I was hoping that the scale of the mesh wouldn't pose too much of a problem as
> someone would recognize the issue when he renders the mesh.
>
> If not, there's nothing I can do, and I guess my question will be left
> unanswered...

OK, I found my problem - the normals were inverted (yxz instead of xyz) - sorry
to have troubled you all!

Post a reply to this message