William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

> Question. Does anyone know why f_torus2() exists? Best I can tell it's a
> much, much, less efficient implementation with an additional capability
> to tweak the values. That last can be done faster in other ways. Current
> plan is to delete f_torus2() in povr.

Damned if I know.
Probably like some of those mapping types that never got defined...
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/message/%3C5438051b%241%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3C5438051b%241%40news.povr
ay.org%3E

the only thing I've found is what you're likely already aware of.

http://www.povray.org/documentation/view/3.7.0/448/
f_torus2(x,y,z, P0, P1, P2). This is different from the f_torus function which
just has the major and minor radii as parameters.

P0 : Field Strength (Needs a negative field strength or a negated function)
P1 : Major radius
P2 : Minor radius


http://www.f-lohmueller.de/pov_tut/addon/00_Basic_Templates/41_Isosurfaces_function.inc/__index.htm


Any ideas about Cousin Ricky's "elliptical torus"?
That could mean any of 3 or 4 different things to me, and searching yielded a
ton of different options.

Speculating here:
Perhaps it might be best to treat all tori as Clifford tori and use the Dupin
cyclide code in the source - which would allow geometric inversion?
But then again the one-size fits all option might not be very efficient...?

Post a reply to this message