I have been playing around with the new formula: RNDCubesIFS. It is a wonderful algorithm!!! Thank you, thank you. This feature allows for the creation of amazing greebles or nurnias. Now that I have seen this, however, it makes me very greedy for even more flexibility. Some of the other IFS formulas in Mandelbulb 3D allow the user to select from a whole range of geometric shapes. I am thinking, for example, of the tiling formulas where the artist can change the “order” of the tiles and thus significantly alter the final shapes of the tiles that constitute a surface or volume – from triangles to pentagons to dodecahedrons.
1: Could an option be added to RNDCubesIFS to create not only cubes, but a whole spectrum of shapes: spheres, stars, specified n-gons, curved entities such as tubes, ovals, etc.? Would this require a huge mathematical effort?
2: Could the surfaces of the shapes be embellished with height-maps? Imagine what the final images could look like if the sets of the randomized cubes could be textured with patterns based on color images!!!
I apologize in advance for my greed, but in my work in professional chemistry, I have often found that my math colleagues found it rather “trivial” (genius from my point of view) to compute things which I could easily imagine but viewed as astounding and quasi-magical. If you can randomize cubes, what is the impediment to randomizing other categories of shapes? If you can paint arbitrary bit mapped textures on a sphere, can you do this on randomized cubes and other types of geometrical volumes?
Greebles? Nurnias? Whaaa?
Btw. You can actually create 4 variations of shapes getting the current version of the formula - spheres are already possible!
Planned additions;
1. Levitation factor, to make shapes fly in z directon.
2. More shape types that I will decide soonish. I was thinking of n-agonal prisms too. But there are complications; because a triangular prism would look bigger than a square (also this problem may be present for pentagons - etc?). So edventually a fixfactor would be needed. This is annoying to me, ...
A paraboloid variation would be greatly simpler.
Also I was thinking of helical shapes generalized: BUT!!! this brings the same problem(s) as ngons.
Normally, to write that in C would be easy as drink water; but I dothis in assembly with a limited number of resources available. So the greedy person would be me not you!
3. Absolutely no!!! I will not add heightmap support - because it's far too complex for me.
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM