From: Robert Covington <artlythere@...>

Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 23:28:53 -0400

Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 23:28:53 -0400

>I am probably completely misinterpreting you, in which case sorry for the >wasted bandwidth.. 'least I got some practice... <Giant snip> Peter, thank you for your contribution. Apologies for any lack of clarity in the original post. The 1.0 refers to color values assigned to each vertex, not the x,y coordinates, in case that was a point of confusion. This is for an interpolated shader ultimately. If it turns out to be as simple as your approach, (I thought of that a week or two ago but forgot about it :( ), I owe you all those demo's I have been promising you. :) Here is the schmeal deal... The values of 1.0 refer to the whole color being assigned to any point there. So a point at V1 would get 1.0*RGB (by channel) A point in the middle would get .5*RGB(Vertex). But since the three would add up to 1.5, some normalization adjustment is indicated to make all three color contributions add up to 1.0 I am trying to come up with a cheapo Gouraud shader approach that eliminates some mach banding I have been getting with a "standard" approach. Once I get a poly list and normals all calc'ed , I will just skip it and go Phong, which interpolates normals across the poly to assign the color value. Or the ambient. Or texture. All of that. >Of course, if you happen to need to find the values keeping in mind the >theorized 11 dimensions [or whatever some mathematicians now think], then >you'd have to start counting backwards in the alphabet... You are deeper than apparent spaz'ness would indicate at first glance. :) Them 11 dimensions go along with Superstring theory. A nice topic for X-FB list. :) Right after I posted the challenge, I realize I have an existing FN that gives the area approach. It is slothy however. Man I wish this stuff had already been written in FB. Hurts my head. Robert Covington