Drawing a smooth implicit surface with misc3d
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
The misc3d
package provides a great implementation of the marching cubes algorithm, allowing to plot implicit surfaces.
For example, let's plot a Dupin cyclide:
a = 0.94; mu = 0.56; c = 0.34 # cyclide parameters
f <- function(x, y, z, a, c, mu){ # implicit equation f(x,y,z)=0
b <- sqrt(a^2-c^2)
(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2)^2 - 4*(a*x-c*mu)^2 - 4*b^2*y^2
}
# define the "voxel"
nx <- 50; ny <- 50; nz <- 25
x <- seq(-c-mu-a, abs(mu-c)+a, length=nx)
y <- seq(-mu-a, mu+a, length=ny)
z <- seq(-mu-c, mu+c, length=nz)
g <- expand.grid(x=x, y=y, z=z)
voxel <- array(with(g, f(x,y,z,a,c,mu)), c(nx,ny,nz))
# plot the surface
library(misc3d)
surf <- computeContour3d(voxel, level=0, x=x, y=y, z=z)
drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf))
Nice, except that the surface is not smooth.
The documentation of drawScene.rgl
says: "Object-specific rendering features such as smoothing and material are controlled by setting in the objects." I don't know what does that mean. How to get a smooth surface?
I have a solution but not a straightforward one: this solution consists in building a mesh3d
object from the output of computeContour3d
, and to include the surface normals in this mesh3d
.
The surface normals of an implicit surface defined by f(x,y,z)=0
are simply given by the gradient of f
. It is not hard to derive the gradient for this example.
gradient <- function(xyz,a,c,mu){
x <- xyz[1]; y <- xyz[2]; z <- xyz[3]
b <- sqrt(a^2-c^2)
c(
2*(2*x)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2) - 8*a*(a*x-c*mu),
2*(2*y)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2) - 8*b^2*y,
2*(2*z)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2)
)
}
Then the normals are computed as follows:
normals <- apply(surf, 1, function(xyz){
gradient(xyz,a,c,mu)
})
Now we are ready to make the mesh3d
object:
mesh <- list(vb = rbind(t(surf),1),
it = matrix(1:nrow(surf), nrow=3),
primitivetype = "triangle",
normals = rbind(-normals,1))
class(mesh) <- c("mesh3d", "shape3d")
And finally to plot it with rgl
:
library(rgl)
shade3d(mesh, color="red")
Nice, the surface is smooth now.
But is there a more straightforward way to get a smooth surface, without building a mesh3d
object? What do they mean in the documentation: "Object-specific rendering features such as smoothing and material are controlled by setting in the objects."?
r rgl
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
The misc3d
package provides a great implementation of the marching cubes algorithm, allowing to plot implicit surfaces.
For example, let's plot a Dupin cyclide:
a = 0.94; mu = 0.56; c = 0.34 # cyclide parameters
f <- function(x, y, z, a, c, mu){ # implicit equation f(x,y,z)=0
b <- sqrt(a^2-c^2)
(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2)^2 - 4*(a*x-c*mu)^2 - 4*b^2*y^2
}
# define the "voxel"
nx <- 50; ny <- 50; nz <- 25
x <- seq(-c-mu-a, abs(mu-c)+a, length=nx)
y <- seq(-mu-a, mu+a, length=ny)
z <- seq(-mu-c, mu+c, length=nz)
g <- expand.grid(x=x, y=y, z=z)
voxel <- array(with(g, f(x,y,z,a,c,mu)), c(nx,ny,nz))
# plot the surface
library(misc3d)
surf <- computeContour3d(voxel, level=0, x=x, y=y, z=z)
drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf))
Nice, except that the surface is not smooth.
The documentation of drawScene.rgl
says: "Object-specific rendering features such as smoothing and material are controlled by setting in the objects." I don't know what does that mean. How to get a smooth surface?
I have a solution but not a straightforward one: this solution consists in building a mesh3d
object from the output of computeContour3d
, and to include the surface normals in this mesh3d
.
The surface normals of an implicit surface defined by f(x,y,z)=0
are simply given by the gradient of f
. It is not hard to derive the gradient for this example.
gradient <- function(xyz,a,c,mu){
x <- xyz[1]; y <- xyz[2]; z <- xyz[3]
b <- sqrt(a^2-c^2)
c(
2*(2*x)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2) - 8*a*(a*x-c*mu),
2*(2*y)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2) - 8*b^2*y,
2*(2*z)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2)
)
}
Then the normals are computed as follows:
normals <- apply(surf, 1, function(xyz){
gradient(xyz,a,c,mu)
})
Now we are ready to make the mesh3d
object:
mesh <- list(vb = rbind(t(surf),1),
it = matrix(1:nrow(surf), nrow=3),
primitivetype = "triangle",
normals = rbind(-normals,1))
class(mesh) <- c("mesh3d", "shape3d")
And finally to plot it with rgl
:
library(rgl)
shade3d(mesh, color="red")
Nice, the surface is smooth now.
But is there a more straightforward way to get a smooth surface, without building a mesh3d
object? What do they mean in the documentation: "Object-specific rendering features such as smoothing and material are controlled by setting in the objects."?
r rgl
1
Try addingsmooth=1000
to yourmakeTriangles
statement, i.e.drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf, smooth=1000))
– G5W
Nov 13 at 0:41
@G5W Oops sorry, I've just posted an answer with the optionsmooth
, before seeing your comment...I will trysmooth=1000
.
– Stéphane Laurent
Nov 13 at 2:07
@G5W I've tried. It seems thatsmooth=TRUE
is the same assmooth=1000
when we use thergl
rendering.
– Stéphane Laurent
Nov 13 at 2:09
I tried another automatic approach: I used the suggestion from gamedev.stackexchange.com/a/145034 to approximate the normals at grid points by differencing and then interpolated for the triangle vertices (which always lie on a grid line). This seems to do a bit better than theaddNormals
approach based on the triangle normals, but still shows big artefacts. So I think if you want a nice smooth surface, you'll have to compute the true normals the way you did.
– user2554330
Nov 16 at 20:25
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
The misc3d
package provides a great implementation of the marching cubes algorithm, allowing to plot implicit surfaces.
For example, let's plot a Dupin cyclide:
a = 0.94; mu = 0.56; c = 0.34 # cyclide parameters
f <- function(x, y, z, a, c, mu){ # implicit equation f(x,y,z)=0
b <- sqrt(a^2-c^2)
(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2)^2 - 4*(a*x-c*mu)^2 - 4*b^2*y^2
}
# define the "voxel"
nx <- 50; ny <- 50; nz <- 25
x <- seq(-c-mu-a, abs(mu-c)+a, length=nx)
y <- seq(-mu-a, mu+a, length=ny)
z <- seq(-mu-c, mu+c, length=nz)
g <- expand.grid(x=x, y=y, z=z)
voxel <- array(with(g, f(x,y,z,a,c,mu)), c(nx,ny,nz))
# plot the surface
library(misc3d)
surf <- computeContour3d(voxel, level=0, x=x, y=y, z=z)
drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf))
Nice, except that the surface is not smooth.
The documentation of drawScene.rgl
says: "Object-specific rendering features such as smoothing and material are controlled by setting in the objects." I don't know what does that mean. How to get a smooth surface?
I have a solution but not a straightforward one: this solution consists in building a mesh3d
object from the output of computeContour3d
, and to include the surface normals in this mesh3d
.
The surface normals of an implicit surface defined by f(x,y,z)=0
are simply given by the gradient of f
. It is not hard to derive the gradient for this example.
gradient <- function(xyz,a,c,mu){
x <- xyz[1]; y <- xyz[2]; z <- xyz[3]
b <- sqrt(a^2-c^2)
c(
2*(2*x)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2) - 8*a*(a*x-c*mu),
2*(2*y)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2) - 8*b^2*y,
2*(2*z)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2)
)
}
Then the normals are computed as follows:
normals <- apply(surf, 1, function(xyz){
gradient(xyz,a,c,mu)
})
Now we are ready to make the mesh3d
object:
mesh <- list(vb = rbind(t(surf),1),
it = matrix(1:nrow(surf), nrow=3),
primitivetype = "triangle",
normals = rbind(-normals,1))
class(mesh) <- c("mesh3d", "shape3d")
And finally to plot it with rgl
:
library(rgl)
shade3d(mesh, color="red")
Nice, the surface is smooth now.
But is there a more straightforward way to get a smooth surface, without building a mesh3d
object? What do they mean in the documentation: "Object-specific rendering features such as smoothing and material are controlled by setting in the objects."?
r rgl
The misc3d
package provides a great implementation of the marching cubes algorithm, allowing to plot implicit surfaces.
For example, let's plot a Dupin cyclide:
a = 0.94; mu = 0.56; c = 0.34 # cyclide parameters
f <- function(x, y, z, a, c, mu){ # implicit equation f(x,y,z)=0
b <- sqrt(a^2-c^2)
(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2)^2 - 4*(a*x-c*mu)^2 - 4*b^2*y^2
}
# define the "voxel"
nx <- 50; ny <- 50; nz <- 25
x <- seq(-c-mu-a, abs(mu-c)+a, length=nx)
y <- seq(-mu-a, mu+a, length=ny)
z <- seq(-mu-c, mu+c, length=nz)
g <- expand.grid(x=x, y=y, z=z)
voxel <- array(with(g, f(x,y,z,a,c,mu)), c(nx,ny,nz))
# plot the surface
library(misc3d)
surf <- computeContour3d(voxel, level=0, x=x, y=y, z=z)
drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf))
Nice, except that the surface is not smooth.
The documentation of drawScene.rgl
says: "Object-specific rendering features such as smoothing and material are controlled by setting in the objects." I don't know what does that mean. How to get a smooth surface?
I have a solution but not a straightforward one: this solution consists in building a mesh3d
object from the output of computeContour3d
, and to include the surface normals in this mesh3d
.
The surface normals of an implicit surface defined by f(x,y,z)=0
are simply given by the gradient of f
. It is not hard to derive the gradient for this example.
gradient <- function(xyz,a,c,mu){
x <- xyz[1]; y <- xyz[2]; z <- xyz[3]
b <- sqrt(a^2-c^2)
c(
2*(2*x)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2) - 8*a*(a*x-c*mu),
2*(2*y)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2) - 8*b^2*y,
2*(2*z)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2)
)
}
Then the normals are computed as follows:
normals <- apply(surf, 1, function(xyz){
gradient(xyz,a,c,mu)
})
Now we are ready to make the mesh3d
object:
mesh <- list(vb = rbind(t(surf),1),
it = matrix(1:nrow(surf), nrow=3),
primitivetype = "triangle",
normals = rbind(-normals,1))
class(mesh) <- c("mesh3d", "shape3d")
And finally to plot it with rgl
:
library(rgl)
shade3d(mesh, color="red")
Nice, the surface is smooth now.
But is there a more straightforward way to get a smooth surface, without building a mesh3d
object? What do they mean in the documentation: "Object-specific rendering features such as smoothing and material are controlled by setting in the objects."?
r rgl
r rgl
asked Nov 13 at 0:27
Stéphane Laurent
11.9k65291
11.9k65291
1
Try addingsmooth=1000
to yourmakeTriangles
statement, i.e.drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf, smooth=1000))
– G5W
Nov 13 at 0:41
@G5W Oops sorry, I've just posted an answer with the optionsmooth
, before seeing your comment...I will trysmooth=1000
.
– Stéphane Laurent
Nov 13 at 2:07
@G5W I've tried. It seems thatsmooth=TRUE
is the same assmooth=1000
when we use thergl
rendering.
– Stéphane Laurent
Nov 13 at 2:09
I tried another automatic approach: I used the suggestion from gamedev.stackexchange.com/a/145034 to approximate the normals at grid points by differencing and then interpolated for the triangle vertices (which always lie on a grid line). This seems to do a bit better than theaddNormals
approach based on the triangle normals, but still shows big artefacts. So I think if you want a nice smooth surface, you'll have to compute the true normals the way you did.
– user2554330
Nov 16 at 20:25
add a comment |
1
Try addingsmooth=1000
to yourmakeTriangles
statement, i.e.drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf, smooth=1000))
– G5W
Nov 13 at 0:41
@G5W Oops sorry, I've just posted an answer with the optionsmooth
, before seeing your comment...I will trysmooth=1000
.
– Stéphane Laurent
Nov 13 at 2:07
@G5W I've tried. It seems thatsmooth=TRUE
is the same assmooth=1000
when we use thergl
rendering.
– Stéphane Laurent
Nov 13 at 2:09
I tried another automatic approach: I used the suggestion from gamedev.stackexchange.com/a/145034 to approximate the normals at grid points by differencing and then interpolated for the triangle vertices (which always lie on a grid line). This seems to do a bit better than theaddNormals
approach based on the triangle normals, but still shows big artefacts. So I think if you want a nice smooth surface, you'll have to compute the true normals the way you did.
– user2554330
Nov 16 at 20:25
1
1
Try adding
smooth=1000
to your makeTriangles
statement, i.e. drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf, smooth=1000))
– G5W
Nov 13 at 0:41
Try adding
smooth=1000
to your makeTriangles
statement, i.e. drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf, smooth=1000))
– G5W
Nov 13 at 0:41
@G5W Oops sorry, I've just posted an answer with the option
smooth
, before seeing your comment...I will try smooth=1000
.– Stéphane Laurent
Nov 13 at 2:07
@G5W Oops sorry, I've just posted an answer with the option
smooth
, before seeing your comment...I will try smooth=1000
.– Stéphane Laurent
Nov 13 at 2:07
@G5W I've tried. It seems that
smooth=TRUE
is the same as smooth=1000
when we use the rgl
rendering.– Stéphane Laurent
Nov 13 at 2:09
@G5W I've tried. It seems that
smooth=TRUE
is the same as smooth=1000
when we use the rgl
rendering.– Stéphane Laurent
Nov 13 at 2:09
I tried another automatic approach: I used the suggestion from gamedev.stackexchange.com/a/145034 to approximate the normals at grid points by differencing and then interpolated for the triangle vertices (which always lie on a grid line). This seems to do a bit better than the
addNormals
approach based on the triangle normals, but still shows big artefacts. So I think if you want a nice smooth surface, you'll have to compute the true normals the way you did.– user2554330
Nov 16 at 20:25
I tried another automatic approach: I used the suggestion from gamedev.stackexchange.com/a/145034 to approximate the normals at grid points by differencing and then interpolated for the triangle vertices (which always lie on a grid line). This seems to do a bit better than the
addNormals
approach based on the triangle normals, but still shows big artefacts. So I think if you want a nice smooth surface, you'll have to compute the true normals the way you did.– user2554330
Nov 16 at 20:25
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
I don't know what the documentation is suggesting. However, you can do it via a mesh object slightly more easily than you did (though the results aren't quite as nice), using the addNormals()
function to calculate the normals automatically rather than by formula.
Here are the steps:
Compute the surface as you did.
Create the mesh without normals. This is basically what you did, but using tmesh3d()
:
mesh <- tmesh3d(t(surf), matrix(1:nrow(surf), nrow=3), homogeneous = FALSE)
Calculate which vertices are duplicates of which others:
verts <- apply(mesh$vb, 2, function(column) paste(column, collapse = " "))
firstcopy <- match(verts, verts)
Rewrite the indices to use the first copy. This is necessary, since the misc3d
functions give a collection of disconnected triangles; we need to work out which are connected.
it <- as.numeric(mesh$it)
it <- firstcopy[it]
dim(it) <- dim(mesh$it)
mesh$it <- it
At this point, there are a lot of unused vertices in the mesh; if memory was a problem you might want to add a step to remove them. I'm going to skip that.
Add the normals
mesh <- addNormals(mesh)
Here are the before and after shots. Left is without normals, right is with them.
It's not quite as smooth as your solution using computed normals, but it's not always easy to find those.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
There's an option smooth
in the makeTriangles
function:
drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf, smooth=TRUE))
I think the result is equivalent to @user2554330's solution, but this is more straightforward.
Yes, definitely preferable.
– user2554330
Nov 13 at 3:16
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
I don't know what the documentation is suggesting. However, you can do it via a mesh object slightly more easily than you did (though the results aren't quite as nice), using the addNormals()
function to calculate the normals automatically rather than by formula.
Here are the steps:
Compute the surface as you did.
Create the mesh without normals. This is basically what you did, but using tmesh3d()
:
mesh <- tmesh3d(t(surf), matrix(1:nrow(surf), nrow=3), homogeneous = FALSE)
Calculate which vertices are duplicates of which others:
verts <- apply(mesh$vb, 2, function(column) paste(column, collapse = " "))
firstcopy <- match(verts, verts)
Rewrite the indices to use the first copy. This is necessary, since the misc3d
functions give a collection of disconnected triangles; we need to work out which are connected.
it <- as.numeric(mesh$it)
it <- firstcopy[it]
dim(it) <- dim(mesh$it)
mesh$it <- it
At this point, there are a lot of unused vertices in the mesh; if memory was a problem you might want to add a step to remove them. I'm going to skip that.
Add the normals
mesh <- addNormals(mesh)
Here are the before and after shots. Left is without normals, right is with them.
It's not quite as smooth as your solution using computed normals, but it's not always easy to find those.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I don't know what the documentation is suggesting. However, you can do it via a mesh object slightly more easily than you did (though the results aren't quite as nice), using the addNormals()
function to calculate the normals automatically rather than by formula.
Here are the steps:
Compute the surface as you did.
Create the mesh without normals. This is basically what you did, but using tmesh3d()
:
mesh <- tmesh3d(t(surf), matrix(1:nrow(surf), nrow=3), homogeneous = FALSE)
Calculate which vertices are duplicates of which others:
verts <- apply(mesh$vb, 2, function(column) paste(column, collapse = " "))
firstcopy <- match(verts, verts)
Rewrite the indices to use the first copy. This is necessary, since the misc3d
functions give a collection of disconnected triangles; we need to work out which are connected.
it <- as.numeric(mesh$it)
it <- firstcopy[it]
dim(it) <- dim(mesh$it)
mesh$it <- it
At this point, there are a lot of unused vertices in the mesh; if memory was a problem you might want to add a step to remove them. I'm going to skip that.
Add the normals
mesh <- addNormals(mesh)
Here are the before and after shots. Left is without normals, right is with them.
It's not quite as smooth as your solution using computed normals, but it's not always easy to find those.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
I don't know what the documentation is suggesting. However, you can do it via a mesh object slightly more easily than you did (though the results aren't quite as nice), using the addNormals()
function to calculate the normals automatically rather than by formula.
Here are the steps:
Compute the surface as you did.
Create the mesh without normals. This is basically what you did, but using tmesh3d()
:
mesh <- tmesh3d(t(surf), matrix(1:nrow(surf), nrow=3), homogeneous = FALSE)
Calculate which vertices are duplicates of which others:
verts <- apply(mesh$vb, 2, function(column) paste(column, collapse = " "))
firstcopy <- match(verts, verts)
Rewrite the indices to use the first copy. This is necessary, since the misc3d
functions give a collection of disconnected triangles; we need to work out which are connected.
it <- as.numeric(mesh$it)
it <- firstcopy[it]
dim(it) <- dim(mesh$it)
mesh$it <- it
At this point, there are a lot of unused vertices in the mesh; if memory was a problem you might want to add a step to remove them. I'm going to skip that.
Add the normals
mesh <- addNormals(mesh)
Here are the before and after shots. Left is without normals, right is with them.
It's not quite as smooth as your solution using computed normals, but it's not always easy to find those.
I don't know what the documentation is suggesting. However, you can do it via a mesh object slightly more easily than you did (though the results aren't quite as nice), using the addNormals()
function to calculate the normals automatically rather than by formula.
Here are the steps:
Compute the surface as you did.
Create the mesh without normals. This is basically what you did, but using tmesh3d()
:
mesh <- tmesh3d(t(surf), matrix(1:nrow(surf), nrow=3), homogeneous = FALSE)
Calculate which vertices are duplicates of which others:
verts <- apply(mesh$vb, 2, function(column) paste(column, collapse = " "))
firstcopy <- match(verts, verts)
Rewrite the indices to use the first copy. This is necessary, since the misc3d
functions give a collection of disconnected triangles; we need to work out which are connected.
it <- as.numeric(mesh$it)
it <- firstcopy[it]
dim(it) <- dim(mesh$it)
mesh$it <- it
At this point, there are a lot of unused vertices in the mesh; if memory was a problem you might want to add a step to remove them. I'm going to skip that.
Add the normals
mesh <- addNormals(mesh)
Here are the before and after shots. Left is without normals, right is with them.
It's not quite as smooth as your solution using computed normals, but it's not always easy to find those.
answered Nov 13 at 1:41
user2554330
8,33011237
8,33011237
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
There's an option smooth
in the makeTriangles
function:
drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf, smooth=TRUE))
I think the result is equivalent to @user2554330's solution, but this is more straightforward.
Yes, definitely preferable.
– user2554330
Nov 13 at 3:16
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
There's an option smooth
in the makeTriangles
function:
drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf, smooth=TRUE))
I think the result is equivalent to @user2554330's solution, but this is more straightforward.
Yes, definitely preferable.
– user2554330
Nov 13 at 3:16
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
There's an option smooth
in the makeTriangles
function:
drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf, smooth=TRUE))
I think the result is equivalent to @user2554330's solution, but this is more straightforward.
There's an option smooth
in the makeTriangles
function:
drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf, smooth=TRUE))
I think the result is equivalent to @user2554330's solution, but this is more straightforward.
answered Nov 13 at 2:05
Stéphane Laurent
11.9k65291
11.9k65291
Yes, definitely preferable.
– user2554330
Nov 13 at 3:16
add a comment |
Yes, definitely preferable.
– user2554330
Nov 13 at 3:16
Yes, definitely preferable.
– user2554330
Nov 13 at 3:16
Yes, definitely preferable.
– user2554330
Nov 13 at 3:16
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53272059%2fdrawing-a-smooth-implicit-surface-with-misc3d%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Try adding
smooth=1000
to yourmakeTriangles
statement, i.e.drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf, smooth=1000))
– G5W
Nov 13 at 0:41
@G5W Oops sorry, I've just posted an answer with the option
smooth
, before seeing your comment...I will trysmooth=1000
.– Stéphane Laurent
Nov 13 at 2:07
@G5W I've tried. It seems that
smooth=TRUE
is the same assmooth=1000
when we use thergl
rendering.– Stéphane Laurent
Nov 13 at 2:09
I tried another automatic approach: I used the suggestion from gamedev.stackexchange.com/a/145034 to approximate the normals at grid points by differencing and then interpolated for the triangle vertices (which always lie on a grid line). This seems to do a bit better than the
addNormals
approach based on the triangle normals, but still shows big artefacts. So I think if you want a nice smooth surface, you'll have to compute the true normals the way you did.– user2554330
Nov 16 at 20:25