Note that creating a texture that fits this triangle is not at all
trivial to produce. Once the proportions for the texture is found,
the texture's size would need to be basically doubled in order to get
the equivalent resolution of a square particle.
That's the part I still don't quite get. None of these images are
trivial for me to produce since I don't know what I'm doing, but
consider this picture:
http://ljensen.com/misc/triangle_with_flare.png
It shows your texture with a triangle that encloses most of the good
stuff. The triangle probably has even less area than the original
square. But the texture that encloses the triangle has roughly twice
the area of the original square. Is that what you mean by "basically
doubled"?
It seems to me that if one rearranged the rays a bit (possibly making
it less realistic-looking, I'll grant you), then it could fit the
triangle better, and maybe fit inside an enclosing square that was
only, say, 25% or so bigger than the original. Call this the T factor.
Now, if one wants to stick with power-of-two texture sizes, then as
soon as you are a little bit larger than the original, you've
basically doubled it (quadrupling the area). Bad. But if you can get a
small T factor by adjusting the rays etc., then can't you just shrink
that image by the T factor and be inside the original rectangle again?
Which is a long way of saying that if one is willing to live with a
smaller central ball, or shorter rays in proportion to the ball, then
one could have a single-triangle texture of the same size as the
original.
Unless I'm missing something, which I will confess is not without precedent.
lj
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|
