clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

>
> The results are actually quite accurate for "large flat 'mathematical'
> slabs", if that's the shape you intend to model. The problem isn't the
> presence of edges /per se/ -- the problem is the presence of edges in
> places where you want to pretend that there are none.
>

Ah yes, I see now. Thanks.

From reading lots of newgroup comments over the years, I had come to the
(mistaken) impression that SSLT actually *worked* better on complex, CURVED
objects-- meaning, an object with LOTS of small triangles and their attendent
interpolated normals. (Such objects do show a nicer, more complex 'look' from
the SSLT effect-- like the ears on the Stanford Bunny.) And conversely, that
more-or-less 'flat-surfaced' featureless objects were to be avoided. But I
understand more clearly now that SSLT *works* equally well on simpler shapes--
like a superellipsoid 'bar of soap', for example. It's just that the final
effect isn't as visually complex (leading me to the mistaken conclusion that it
didn't work well on such shapes.)

Post a reply to this message