@DarkBeam:

I "only" tried to combine the most promising unimplemented bugman formulas mixing them with sine and cosine this leads to four variants each formula total 12.

As for the all other variants - I did not exactly remember all those...

But definitely not all combos are good looking. So ... we need to be a bit choosy

.....

Agree, not all of the examples I have seen are beautiful (or even useful), and also some of the variants (like positive vs negative variants) may be too equivalent to show good results. Thus you have a good argument to limit the work

You are also right, I should simplify my formulas. Maybe I will check once I find the mood to do so. As of now I like it to have the formulas a bit better readable.

And, ah, I thought optimization is your task

Help appreciated for this issue;

Is anyone able to do the following mixing?

1. Calculate pow3 sine bulb

2. Calculate pow5 sine bulb

3. Using a "cosine product" (or whatever) multiply the resulting triplexes and add c.

Note: I'm writing my answer here as I think that your question here is almost the same as in 'my' thread...

Ok. Maybe I'm already getting stuck in the mud behind the beautiful surface of the Mandelbulb

, but:

Because I know that I usually make too many errors when calculating polynoms I started to think about your question from the perspective of spheric coordinates.

And from a pure spheric perspective I'm not exactly sure what the described mixture of q³ and q⁵ should introduce on new behavior.

I have read a bit in the big triplex thread, especially: the spheric definition of a multipication in one of the pictures in the begin, and also the discussion between David Makin, Paolo Bonzini, and Timeroot between Jan-19th and 21th 2010.

As a consequence from all that I would say: As long as one can use pure spheric numbers (and so far I believe to understand now I can do so as long as I make only multiplications of powers) then q³*q⁵=q⁸ , and nothing does change...

I don't really know whether this is still valid if one always calculates with cartesian coordinates to speed up. I assume that it should come to the same result (and would be a good prove for correct programming

) , but I'm not sure. I have tried a bit, but got some mess only right now.

What

**may** make sense would be if one would multiply different bulb types, i.e.

1. Calculate pow n bulb variant 1 (say, sine)

2. Calculate pow (8-n) bulb variant 2 (say, cosine)

3. Multiply the resulting triplexes (by the way: Did you ever have seen another cartesian triplex multiplication than the sine version that is explained in the triplex math thread?).

@ mclarekin:

Thank you for your own mixture example

You are absolutely right, there are already too many bulb versions out in the world now. And starting to mix them may bring us abroad

To be honest, I also like all this mixing, and mutating etc too much.

However, maybe we should keep only those results which show something really new/amazing ...