bug in DOTS texture ????
4 messages in this thread
Hi All
Has anybody noticed problems with the DOTS texture supplied with Imagine
2.0. I have found that it does not work the same as the one that was with
1.1.
I have a 800×600 plane and has a DOT texture map, with a spacing of 60,
and a dot size of 10. When Rendered the dots don't show up unless I
increase the dot size to about 27, then they will show up. It seems from my
experimenting that in 2.0 the dots must be about 1/3 or bigger in relation
to dot spacing or they disappear. This texture map worked fine in 1.1 at
any dot size so it would appear to be a bug in the DOT texture.
As a result several of my pictures that were work in progress, have to
be put on hold until I figure out what is wrong or else I have to go back
to 1.1 to finish them. (I prefer 2.0, thats why I paid my money).
Can anyone confirm this!
/ So much Great Amiga Software, so little Time !!
\/ John Lemoine via Whap! 75320,143 Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
John,
I have a hunch as to what may be wrong. Disclaimer: everything in this
message is pure theory, based on my perception of how Imagine works! Bricks
are welcome.
The Dots texture is three-dimensional, basically a 3-D grid of spheres.
If a vertical plane passes through the exact center of the spheres, all the
dots will be the same size, the size specified in the texture parameter
screen.
Now say you move the plane towards you (i.e. perpendicular to its
surface). The plane still intersects the same spheres, but they'll all
appear smaller because they're "sliced" closer to their surface. If you
move the plane a bit more than the dots' radius, they'll seem to disappear.
At this point, increase the dot size in the texture. Presto, the dots
will reappear, because the plane now intersects part of the new, larger
dots. Of course, they'll be smaller, since a smaller part of the dot
intersects the plane, compared to the original placement, where the plane
intersected each dot through its center. Why, you may have to increase dot
size by as much as 3 to 1 to get the same result with the offset plane. :^)
Now realize that this translation could be the result of moving the plane,
or moving the texture axis. :^D
Of course, we all know Imagine 2.0 has a handy-dandy new default
placement for texture axes. B^D
Maybe there is a connetion here? I suggest you go back and make sure
your texture axes are where you think they are.
Blaq!
Charles Blaquiere
I thought that the dots texture was a map of disks, not 3d-Spheres. In
any event I have WASTED another evening trying to get DOTS to work. I have
placed a DOTS texture on a plane 800×600 in dimension with the texture axis
x=0 y=0 z=+5, this does work o.k. if you use the default size settings when
you load the texture but does'nt work at almost any other settings. In
particular I want to get a spacing of 60 and a dot size of 10, seems simple
enough and it did work fine in Imagine 1.1, but does not now with version
2.0.
Grrr!! every time I start to get somewhere with Imagine, something
stupid like this rises up and kicks me down and makes me waste dozens of
hours and CPU time. It's a good thing I don't have to make a living with
this program.
/ So much Great Amiga Software, so little Time !!
\/ John Lemoine via Whap! 75320,143 Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
John, I received Steve Whorley's "Understanding Imagine 2.0" recently and
he describes the Dots texture as actually being spheres in a 3D grid. So
the dot spacing, dot radius and axis size will be critical, especially with
an irregular object. With even a plane, everything would have to be right
to make sure the plane is cutting through each dot (sphere) enough to see a
good slice of the dot. This is why he says with an irregular object, your
dots will be different sizes. I'm still experimenting myself (For 3
years!), but I'm having fun. BP.
– via Whap!