On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 02:30 -0400, bulia byak wrote:
On 10/31/06, Ted Gould <ted@...11...> wrote:
> What I'm curious about is the edges. If you look at the attached PNG
> what you get is transparent edges, which really isn't what the gradient
> specified. I think that the edges have to be backed up with another
> object... the question is what.
See my other mail - we just need to pad the edge segments so they
extend beyond the clip by at least the blur radius. I just tested it
and it works fine, no more transparency at the edges.
Okay, makes sense.
Another consideration: the size of the fragment must adjust
automatically by taking the _smallest_ cell in the mesh and
subdividing it into a user-settable number of fragments. Then, larger
cells should use the same fragment _size_, not the same number of
subdivisions. This is because we have one single blur radius for the
whole object, and that blur cannot be bigger than the smallest
Instead of a user settable amount of subdivisions shouldn't it be a user
settable amount of error? I'm just thinking that simple meshes would
look good with fewer subdivisions (the majority of cases) but users may
want to set the default division higher to handle all cases. It would
be a shame to over-subdivide, at that point we're basically