Little help needed for extending the Kleinian algo.

[knighty]

Cool variations!

I figured out how to show hexagon flakes instead of plain "squares"
(...)
edit; too bad the method is adding some cuts around 

hexagonal tilings are not the only possible. Here is the (very slow) fragmentarium shader that generated this picture. Still some work to do in order to make it faster. It is slow because of the tests added in order to reduce the cuts.

[Crist-JRoger]

I forgot to post the .frag! my apologies!
Consider this .frag as a non canonical, mutant version of the original version. Its some experiments that I was trying to do.   
It basically add a Julia set (and a multiplier) and two possible entry points for the abs() function.
All is under the Jul section, and you can see the examples (variations of the original examples) in the Jul presets.
One example is missing, the first picture, that was done by changing the Julia function by the burning ship formula, but I didn't wanted to burden the .frag with more conditionals!.

Anyways, I will try other functions! 

Thank you very much for frag! Played with this and finally i got what i wanted to do for a long time 

[mclarekin]

Beautiful use of light , color and reflection

[Crist-JRoger]

Thank you ) Turned off reflexions on fractal.
_{Little oftopic question to Knighty: Is possible to reflect godrays? Here on water the ray does't reflect
upd.: found the problem}

[Aexion]

Thank you very much for frag! Played with this and finally i got what i wanted to do for a long time 

<Quoted Image Removed>

It's a beautiful render!! Looks like a real nature photo.. 

[0Encrypted0]

@DarkBeam
Hexagonal mode for JosKn-KleinIFS

Zoomed in on parameter from above link and saw some artifacts in Navi and rendered image (FYI).
See attached image.

[DarkBeam]

Thanks, I am aware that this fractal is based on cuts and approximated so it is not avoidable to have some troubles.

[DarkBeam]

I am currently trying to implement aexion and pupukuusikko 's suggestions. Some bad news;

1. Mb3D really dislikes when I take off separation line, the render is very slow and the shapes blow out. (Just I get small spheres scattering around).
2. Aexion abs options; Abs1 works even if the effect is somewhat strange but Abs2 just causes a bailout failure (all points become solid).
3. Boxfold works ok! But without sep line tweak... ?
4. Aexion Julia Mode looks interesting but deforms strongly.

 

[pupukuusikko]

I am currently trying to implement aexion and pupukuusikko 's suggestions. Some bad news;

1. Mb3D really dislikes when I take off separation line, the render is very slow and the shapes blow out. (Just I get small spheres scattering around).
2. Aexion abs options; Abs1 works even if the effect is somewhat strange but Abs2 just causes a bailout failure (all points become solid).
3. Boxfold works ok! But without sep line tweak... ?
4. Aexion Julia Mode looks interesting but deforms strongly.

 

Unfortunate. Do you mean that taking off separation line never works? No separation line and boxfold should
be just about the same as scale 1 box, so it should be straightforward . I got maybe similar issues
when I had the z = vec3(-b,a,c)-z; outside the conditional, make sure you have it like below.

Code:

if (separation_line) {
	if  (z.y >= a * (0.5+  f * 0.25*sign(z.x + b * 0.5)* (1. - exp( - 3.2 * abs(z.x + b * 0.5)))))	
		z = vec3(-b, a, c) - z; //<- check that this line is not performed if there is no separation line
	}
}

Also the DE works a bit differently without separation line, clampY and clampDF have to be close to zero.
If you want to make behaviour more consistent, you can try to add a constant to DF like:

Code:

if (separation_line) {
	 ....
}
else {
   DF+=0.5;
}

Also if you get this work, and want to allow combination of no separation line and  original wrapping, I think the box sizes should be halved.

Hope you get it working

[DarkBeam]

Actually I kinda got it to work keeping the separation line calculus, then breaking the loop if we are too far from it (when distance is > a/2 ). Else I just do no transform like in your frag.
This causes one side of kleinian to be just empty and the other to have "tall spirals" that in some cases get broken. Very close to that you made I think...
Removing it altogether causes too much trouble. I think even some overflows happen ...

[pupukuusikko]

Cool Although if it is not continuous, then it might be kind of useless.  That is in my view the only positive aspect of my version compared to the original.
But, like you've said, people like symmetry.

[DarkBeam]

I am getting sliced spheres even in forced symmetry mode but sometimes the results are cool (see the strange spirals around);

[pupukuusikko]

That's interesting

I think it might be better to approach no separation + boxfold from the box direction,
if you ever decide to get back to amazingIFS. Then it would also have better hybrid possibilities.

[DarkBeam]

I tried to rewrite the formula as did trafassel.
Now the formula stopped to work. I don't know how and when I will be able to recover it.
See that it is not easy to change those ...

[pupukuusikko]

I tried to rewrite the formula as did trafassel.
Now the formula stopped to work. I don't know how and when I will be able to recover it.
See that it is not easy to change those ...

sorry to hear that 
If I ever use phrases like 'should be easy' or 'straightforward', you know I mean it in a special sense,
as in 'beyond impossible for everyone in the world except perhaps Luca if he is especially lucky'