Drawing a smooth implicit surface with misc3d












3















The misc3d package provides a great implementation of the marching cubes algorithm, allowing to plot implicit surfaces.



For example, let's plot a Dupin cyclide:



a = 0.94; mu = 0.56; c = 0.34 # cyclide parameters
f <- function(x, y, z, a, c, mu){ # implicit equation f(x,y,z)=0
b <- sqrt(a^2-c^2)
(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2)^2 - 4*(a*x-c*mu)^2 - 4*b^2*y^2
}
# define the "voxel"
nx <- 50; ny <- 50; nz <- 25
x <- seq(-c-mu-a, abs(mu-c)+a, length=nx)
y <- seq(-mu-a, mu+a, length=ny)
z <- seq(-mu-c, mu+c, length=nz)
g <- expand.grid(x=x, y=y, z=z)
voxel <- array(with(g, f(x,y,z,a,c,mu)), c(nx,ny,nz))
# plot the surface
library(misc3d)
surf <- computeContour3d(voxel, level=0, x=x, y=y, z=z)
drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf))


enter image description here



Nice, except that the surface is not smooth.
The documentation of drawScene.rgl says: "Object-specific rendering features such as smoothing and material are controlled by setting in the objects." I don't know what does that mean. How to get a smooth surface?



I have a solution but not a straightforward one: this solution consists in building a mesh3d object from the output of computeContour3d, and to include the surface normals in this mesh3d.



The surface normals of an implicit surface defined by f(x,y,z)=0 are simply given by the gradient of f. It is not hard to derive the gradient for this example.



gradient <- function(xyz,a,c,mu){
x <- xyz[1]; y <- xyz[2]; z <- xyz[3]
b <- sqrt(a^2-c^2)
c(
2*(2*x)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2) - 8*a*(a*x-c*mu),
2*(2*y)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2) - 8*b^2*y,
2*(2*z)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2)
)
}


Then the normals are computed as follows:



normals <- apply(surf, 1, function(xyz){
gradient(xyz,a,c,mu)
})


Now we are ready to make the mesh3d object:



mesh <- list(vb = rbind(t(surf),1),
it = matrix(1:nrow(surf), nrow=3),
primitivetype = "triangle",
normals = rbind(-normals,1))
class(mesh) <- c("mesh3d", "shape3d")


And finally to plot it with rgl:



library(rgl)
shade3d(mesh, color="red")


enter image description here



Nice, the surface is smooth now.



But is there a more straightforward way to get a smooth surface, without building a mesh3d object? What do they mean in the documentation: "Object-specific rendering features such as smoothing and material are controlled by setting in the objects."?










share|improve this question


















  • 1





    Try adding smooth=1000 to your makeTriangles statement, i.e. drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf, smooth=1000))

    – G5W
    Nov 13 '18 at 0:41











  • @G5W Oops sorry, I've just posted an answer with the option smooth, before seeing your comment...I will try smooth=1000.

    – Stéphane Laurent
    Nov 13 '18 at 2:07











  • @G5W I've tried. It seems that smooth=TRUE is the same as smooth=1000 when we use the rgl rendering.

    – Stéphane Laurent
    Nov 13 '18 at 2:09











  • I tried another automatic approach: I used the suggestion from gamedev.stackexchange.com/a/145034 to approximate the normals at grid points by differencing and then interpolated for the triangle vertices (which always lie on a grid line). This seems to do a bit better than the addNormals approach based on the triangle normals, but still shows big artefacts. So I think if you want a nice smooth surface, you'll have to compute the true normals the way you did.

    – user2554330
    Nov 16 '18 at 20:25
















3















The misc3d package provides a great implementation of the marching cubes algorithm, allowing to plot implicit surfaces.



For example, let's plot a Dupin cyclide:



a = 0.94; mu = 0.56; c = 0.34 # cyclide parameters
f <- function(x, y, z, a, c, mu){ # implicit equation f(x,y,z)=0
b <- sqrt(a^2-c^2)
(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2)^2 - 4*(a*x-c*mu)^2 - 4*b^2*y^2
}
# define the "voxel"
nx <- 50; ny <- 50; nz <- 25
x <- seq(-c-mu-a, abs(mu-c)+a, length=nx)
y <- seq(-mu-a, mu+a, length=ny)
z <- seq(-mu-c, mu+c, length=nz)
g <- expand.grid(x=x, y=y, z=z)
voxel <- array(with(g, f(x,y,z,a,c,mu)), c(nx,ny,nz))
# plot the surface
library(misc3d)
surf <- computeContour3d(voxel, level=0, x=x, y=y, z=z)
drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf))


enter image description here



Nice, except that the surface is not smooth.
The documentation of drawScene.rgl says: "Object-specific rendering features such as smoothing and material are controlled by setting in the objects." I don't know what does that mean. How to get a smooth surface?



I have a solution but not a straightforward one: this solution consists in building a mesh3d object from the output of computeContour3d, and to include the surface normals in this mesh3d.



The surface normals of an implicit surface defined by f(x,y,z)=0 are simply given by the gradient of f. It is not hard to derive the gradient for this example.



gradient <- function(xyz,a,c,mu){
x <- xyz[1]; y <- xyz[2]; z <- xyz[3]
b <- sqrt(a^2-c^2)
c(
2*(2*x)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2) - 8*a*(a*x-c*mu),
2*(2*y)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2) - 8*b^2*y,
2*(2*z)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2)
)
}


Then the normals are computed as follows:



normals <- apply(surf, 1, function(xyz){
gradient(xyz,a,c,mu)
})


Now we are ready to make the mesh3d object:



mesh <- list(vb = rbind(t(surf),1),
it = matrix(1:nrow(surf), nrow=3),
primitivetype = "triangle",
normals = rbind(-normals,1))
class(mesh) <- c("mesh3d", "shape3d")


And finally to plot it with rgl:



library(rgl)
shade3d(mesh, color="red")


enter image description here



Nice, the surface is smooth now.



But is there a more straightforward way to get a smooth surface, without building a mesh3d object? What do they mean in the documentation: "Object-specific rendering features such as smoothing and material are controlled by setting in the objects."?










share|improve this question


















  • 1





    Try adding smooth=1000 to your makeTriangles statement, i.e. drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf, smooth=1000))

    – G5W
    Nov 13 '18 at 0:41











  • @G5W Oops sorry, I've just posted an answer with the option smooth, before seeing your comment...I will try smooth=1000.

    – Stéphane Laurent
    Nov 13 '18 at 2:07











  • @G5W I've tried. It seems that smooth=TRUE is the same as smooth=1000 when we use the rgl rendering.

    – Stéphane Laurent
    Nov 13 '18 at 2:09











  • I tried another automatic approach: I used the suggestion from gamedev.stackexchange.com/a/145034 to approximate the normals at grid points by differencing and then interpolated for the triangle vertices (which always lie on a grid line). This seems to do a bit better than the addNormals approach based on the triangle normals, but still shows big artefacts. So I think if you want a nice smooth surface, you'll have to compute the true normals the way you did.

    – user2554330
    Nov 16 '18 at 20:25














3












3








3


1






The misc3d package provides a great implementation of the marching cubes algorithm, allowing to plot implicit surfaces.



For example, let's plot a Dupin cyclide:



a = 0.94; mu = 0.56; c = 0.34 # cyclide parameters
f <- function(x, y, z, a, c, mu){ # implicit equation f(x,y,z)=0
b <- sqrt(a^2-c^2)
(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2)^2 - 4*(a*x-c*mu)^2 - 4*b^2*y^2
}
# define the "voxel"
nx <- 50; ny <- 50; nz <- 25
x <- seq(-c-mu-a, abs(mu-c)+a, length=nx)
y <- seq(-mu-a, mu+a, length=ny)
z <- seq(-mu-c, mu+c, length=nz)
g <- expand.grid(x=x, y=y, z=z)
voxel <- array(with(g, f(x,y,z,a,c,mu)), c(nx,ny,nz))
# plot the surface
library(misc3d)
surf <- computeContour3d(voxel, level=0, x=x, y=y, z=z)
drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf))


enter image description here



Nice, except that the surface is not smooth.
The documentation of drawScene.rgl says: "Object-specific rendering features such as smoothing and material are controlled by setting in the objects." I don't know what does that mean. How to get a smooth surface?



I have a solution but not a straightforward one: this solution consists in building a mesh3d object from the output of computeContour3d, and to include the surface normals in this mesh3d.



The surface normals of an implicit surface defined by f(x,y,z)=0 are simply given by the gradient of f. It is not hard to derive the gradient for this example.



gradient <- function(xyz,a,c,mu){
x <- xyz[1]; y <- xyz[2]; z <- xyz[3]
b <- sqrt(a^2-c^2)
c(
2*(2*x)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2) - 8*a*(a*x-c*mu),
2*(2*y)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2) - 8*b^2*y,
2*(2*z)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2)
)
}


Then the normals are computed as follows:



normals <- apply(surf, 1, function(xyz){
gradient(xyz,a,c,mu)
})


Now we are ready to make the mesh3d object:



mesh <- list(vb = rbind(t(surf),1),
it = matrix(1:nrow(surf), nrow=3),
primitivetype = "triangle",
normals = rbind(-normals,1))
class(mesh) <- c("mesh3d", "shape3d")


And finally to plot it with rgl:



library(rgl)
shade3d(mesh, color="red")


enter image description here



Nice, the surface is smooth now.



But is there a more straightforward way to get a smooth surface, without building a mesh3d object? What do they mean in the documentation: "Object-specific rendering features such as smoothing and material are controlled by setting in the objects."?










share|improve this question














The misc3d package provides a great implementation of the marching cubes algorithm, allowing to plot implicit surfaces.



For example, let's plot a Dupin cyclide:



a = 0.94; mu = 0.56; c = 0.34 # cyclide parameters
f <- function(x, y, z, a, c, mu){ # implicit equation f(x,y,z)=0
b <- sqrt(a^2-c^2)
(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2)^2 - 4*(a*x-c*mu)^2 - 4*b^2*y^2
}
# define the "voxel"
nx <- 50; ny <- 50; nz <- 25
x <- seq(-c-mu-a, abs(mu-c)+a, length=nx)
y <- seq(-mu-a, mu+a, length=ny)
z <- seq(-mu-c, mu+c, length=nz)
g <- expand.grid(x=x, y=y, z=z)
voxel <- array(with(g, f(x,y,z,a,c,mu)), c(nx,ny,nz))
# plot the surface
library(misc3d)
surf <- computeContour3d(voxel, level=0, x=x, y=y, z=z)
drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf))


enter image description here



Nice, except that the surface is not smooth.
The documentation of drawScene.rgl says: "Object-specific rendering features such as smoothing and material are controlled by setting in the objects." I don't know what does that mean. How to get a smooth surface?



I have a solution but not a straightforward one: this solution consists in building a mesh3d object from the output of computeContour3d, and to include the surface normals in this mesh3d.



The surface normals of an implicit surface defined by f(x,y,z)=0 are simply given by the gradient of f. It is not hard to derive the gradient for this example.



gradient <- function(xyz,a,c,mu){
x <- xyz[1]; y <- xyz[2]; z <- xyz[3]
b <- sqrt(a^2-c^2)
c(
2*(2*x)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2) - 8*a*(a*x-c*mu),
2*(2*y)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2) - 8*b^2*y,
2*(2*z)*(x^2+y^2+z^2-mu^2+b^2)
)
}


Then the normals are computed as follows:



normals <- apply(surf, 1, function(xyz){
gradient(xyz,a,c,mu)
})


Now we are ready to make the mesh3d object:



mesh <- list(vb = rbind(t(surf),1),
it = matrix(1:nrow(surf), nrow=3),
primitivetype = "triangle",
normals = rbind(-normals,1))
class(mesh) <- c("mesh3d", "shape3d")


And finally to plot it with rgl:



library(rgl)
shade3d(mesh, color="red")


enter image description here



Nice, the surface is smooth now.



But is there a more straightforward way to get a smooth surface, without building a mesh3d object? What do they mean in the documentation: "Object-specific rendering features such as smoothing and material are controlled by setting in the objects."?







r rgl






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Nov 13 '18 at 0:27









Stéphane LaurentStéphane Laurent

12.7k65392




12.7k65392








  • 1





    Try adding smooth=1000 to your makeTriangles statement, i.e. drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf, smooth=1000))

    – G5W
    Nov 13 '18 at 0:41











  • @G5W Oops sorry, I've just posted an answer with the option smooth, before seeing your comment...I will try smooth=1000.

    – Stéphane Laurent
    Nov 13 '18 at 2:07











  • @G5W I've tried. It seems that smooth=TRUE is the same as smooth=1000 when we use the rgl rendering.

    – Stéphane Laurent
    Nov 13 '18 at 2:09











  • I tried another automatic approach: I used the suggestion from gamedev.stackexchange.com/a/145034 to approximate the normals at grid points by differencing and then interpolated for the triangle vertices (which always lie on a grid line). This seems to do a bit better than the addNormals approach based on the triangle normals, but still shows big artefacts. So I think if you want a nice smooth surface, you'll have to compute the true normals the way you did.

    – user2554330
    Nov 16 '18 at 20:25














  • 1





    Try adding smooth=1000 to your makeTriangles statement, i.e. drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf, smooth=1000))

    – G5W
    Nov 13 '18 at 0:41











  • @G5W Oops sorry, I've just posted an answer with the option smooth, before seeing your comment...I will try smooth=1000.

    – Stéphane Laurent
    Nov 13 '18 at 2:07











  • @G5W I've tried. It seems that smooth=TRUE is the same as smooth=1000 when we use the rgl rendering.

    – Stéphane Laurent
    Nov 13 '18 at 2:09











  • I tried another automatic approach: I used the suggestion from gamedev.stackexchange.com/a/145034 to approximate the normals at grid points by differencing and then interpolated for the triangle vertices (which always lie on a grid line). This seems to do a bit better than the addNormals approach based on the triangle normals, but still shows big artefacts. So I think if you want a nice smooth surface, you'll have to compute the true normals the way you did.

    – user2554330
    Nov 16 '18 at 20:25








1




1





Try adding smooth=1000 to your makeTriangles statement, i.e. drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf, smooth=1000))

– G5W
Nov 13 '18 at 0:41





Try adding smooth=1000 to your makeTriangles statement, i.e. drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf, smooth=1000))

– G5W
Nov 13 '18 at 0:41













@G5W Oops sorry, I've just posted an answer with the option smooth, before seeing your comment...I will try smooth=1000.

– Stéphane Laurent
Nov 13 '18 at 2:07





@G5W Oops sorry, I've just posted an answer with the option smooth, before seeing your comment...I will try smooth=1000.

– Stéphane Laurent
Nov 13 '18 at 2:07













@G5W I've tried. It seems that smooth=TRUE is the same as smooth=1000 when we use the rgl rendering.

– Stéphane Laurent
Nov 13 '18 at 2:09





@G5W I've tried. It seems that smooth=TRUE is the same as smooth=1000 when we use the rgl rendering.

– Stéphane Laurent
Nov 13 '18 at 2:09













I tried another automatic approach: I used the suggestion from gamedev.stackexchange.com/a/145034 to approximate the normals at grid points by differencing and then interpolated for the triangle vertices (which always lie on a grid line). This seems to do a bit better than the addNormals approach based on the triangle normals, but still shows big artefacts. So I think if you want a nice smooth surface, you'll have to compute the true normals the way you did.

– user2554330
Nov 16 '18 at 20:25





I tried another automatic approach: I used the suggestion from gamedev.stackexchange.com/a/145034 to approximate the normals at grid points by differencing and then interpolated for the triangle vertices (which always lie on a grid line). This seems to do a bit better than the addNormals approach based on the triangle normals, but still shows big artefacts. So I think if you want a nice smooth surface, you'll have to compute the true normals the way you did.

– user2554330
Nov 16 '18 at 20:25












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2














I don't know what the documentation is suggesting. However, you can do it via a mesh object slightly more easily than you did (though the results aren't quite as nice), using the addNormals() function to calculate the normals automatically rather than by formula.



Here are the steps:



Compute the surface as you did.



Create the mesh without normals. This is basically what you did, but using tmesh3d():



mesh <- tmesh3d(t(surf), matrix(1:nrow(surf), nrow=3), homogeneous = FALSE)


Calculate which vertices are duplicates of which others:



verts <- apply(mesh$vb, 2, function(column) paste(column, collapse = " "))
firstcopy <- match(verts, verts)


Rewrite the indices to use the first copy. This is necessary, since the misc3d functions give a collection of disconnected triangles; we need to work out which are connected.



it <- as.numeric(mesh$it)
it <- firstcopy[it]
dim(it) <- dim(mesh$it)
mesh$it <- it


At this point, there are a lot of unused vertices in the mesh; if memory was a problem you might want to add a step to remove them. I'm going to skip that.



Add the normals



mesh <- addNormals(mesh)


Here are the before and after shots. Left is without normals, right is with them.



screenshots



It's not quite as smooth as your solution using computed normals, but it's not always easy to find those.






share|improve this answer































    1














    There's an option smooth in the makeTriangles function:



    drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf, smooth=TRUE))


    I think the result is equivalent to @user2554330's solution, but this is more straightforward.



    enter image description here






    share|improve this answer
























    • Yes, definitely preferable.

      – user2554330
      Nov 13 '18 at 3:16











    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    });
    });
    }, "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53272059%2fdrawing-a-smooth-implicit-surface-with-misc3d%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2














    I don't know what the documentation is suggesting. However, you can do it via a mesh object slightly more easily than you did (though the results aren't quite as nice), using the addNormals() function to calculate the normals automatically rather than by formula.



    Here are the steps:



    Compute the surface as you did.



    Create the mesh without normals. This is basically what you did, but using tmesh3d():



    mesh <- tmesh3d(t(surf), matrix(1:nrow(surf), nrow=3), homogeneous = FALSE)


    Calculate which vertices are duplicates of which others:



    verts <- apply(mesh$vb, 2, function(column) paste(column, collapse = " "))
    firstcopy <- match(verts, verts)


    Rewrite the indices to use the first copy. This is necessary, since the misc3d functions give a collection of disconnected triangles; we need to work out which are connected.



    it <- as.numeric(mesh$it)
    it <- firstcopy[it]
    dim(it) <- dim(mesh$it)
    mesh$it <- it


    At this point, there are a lot of unused vertices in the mesh; if memory was a problem you might want to add a step to remove them. I'm going to skip that.



    Add the normals



    mesh <- addNormals(mesh)


    Here are the before and after shots. Left is without normals, right is with them.



    screenshots



    It's not quite as smooth as your solution using computed normals, but it's not always easy to find those.






    share|improve this answer




























      2














      I don't know what the documentation is suggesting. However, you can do it via a mesh object slightly more easily than you did (though the results aren't quite as nice), using the addNormals() function to calculate the normals automatically rather than by formula.



      Here are the steps:



      Compute the surface as you did.



      Create the mesh without normals. This is basically what you did, but using tmesh3d():



      mesh <- tmesh3d(t(surf), matrix(1:nrow(surf), nrow=3), homogeneous = FALSE)


      Calculate which vertices are duplicates of which others:



      verts <- apply(mesh$vb, 2, function(column) paste(column, collapse = " "))
      firstcopy <- match(verts, verts)


      Rewrite the indices to use the first copy. This is necessary, since the misc3d functions give a collection of disconnected triangles; we need to work out which are connected.



      it <- as.numeric(mesh$it)
      it <- firstcopy[it]
      dim(it) <- dim(mesh$it)
      mesh$it <- it


      At this point, there are a lot of unused vertices in the mesh; if memory was a problem you might want to add a step to remove them. I'm going to skip that.



      Add the normals



      mesh <- addNormals(mesh)


      Here are the before and after shots. Left is without normals, right is with them.



      screenshots



      It's not quite as smooth as your solution using computed normals, but it's not always easy to find those.






      share|improve this answer


























        2












        2








        2







        I don't know what the documentation is suggesting. However, you can do it via a mesh object slightly more easily than you did (though the results aren't quite as nice), using the addNormals() function to calculate the normals automatically rather than by formula.



        Here are the steps:



        Compute the surface as you did.



        Create the mesh without normals. This is basically what you did, but using tmesh3d():



        mesh <- tmesh3d(t(surf), matrix(1:nrow(surf), nrow=3), homogeneous = FALSE)


        Calculate which vertices are duplicates of which others:



        verts <- apply(mesh$vb, 2, function(column) paste(column, collapse = " "))
        firstcopy <- match(verts, verts)


        Rewrite the indices to use the first copy. This is necessary, since the misc3d functions give a collection of disconnected triangles; we need to work out which are connected.



        it <- as.numeric(mesh$it)
        it <- firstcopy[it]
        dim(it) <- dim(mesh$it)
        mesh$it <- it


        At this point, there are a lot of unused vertices in the mesh; if memory was a problem you might want to add a step to remove them. I'm going to skip that.



        Add the normals



        mesh <- addNormals(mesh)


        Here are the before and after shots. Left is without normals, right is with them.



        screenshots



        It's not quite as smooth as your solution using computed normals, but it's not always easy to find those.






        share|improve this answer













        I don't know what the documentation is suggesting. However, you can do it via a mesh object slightly more easily than you did (though the results aren't quite as nice), using the addNormals() function to calculate the normals automatically rather than by formula.



        Here are the steps:



        Compute the surface as you did.



        Create the mesh without normals. This is basically what you did, but using tmesh3d():



        mesh <- tmesh3d(t(surf), matrix(1:nrow(surf), nrow=3), homogeneous = FALSE)


        Calculate which vertices are duplicates of which others:



        verts <- apply(mesh$vb, 2, function(column) paste(column, collapse = " "))
        firstcopy <- match(verts, verts)


        Rewrite the indices to use the first copy. This is necessary, since the misc3d functions give a collection of disconnected triangles; we need to work out which are connected.



        it <- as.numeric(mesh$it)
        it <- firstcopy[it]
        dim(it) <- dim(mesh$it)
        mesh$it <- it


        At this point, there are a lot of unused vertices in the mesh; if memory was a problem you might want to add a step to remove them. I'm going to skip that.



        Add the normals



        mesh <- addNormals(mesh)


        Here are the before and after shots. Left is without normals, right is with them.



        screenshots



        It's not quite as smooth as your solution using computed normals, but it's not always easy to find those.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Nov 13 '18 at 1:41









        user2554330user2554330

        8,73211238




        8,73211238

























            1














            There's an option smooth in the makeTriangles function:



            drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf, smooth=TRUE))


            I think the result is equivalent to @user2554330's solution, but this is more straightforward.



            enter image description here






            share|improve this answer
























            • Yes, definitely preferable.

              – user2554330
              Nov 13 '18 at 3:16
















            1














            There's an option smooth in the makeTriangles function:



            drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf, smooth=TRUE))


            I think the result is equivalent to @user2554330's solution, but this is more straightforward.



            enter image description here






            share|improve this answer
























            • Yes, definitely preferable.

              – user2554330
              Nov 13 '18 at 3:16














            1












            1








            1







            There's an option smooth in the makeTriangles function:



            drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf, smooth=TRUE))


            I think the result is equivalent to @user2554330's solution, but this is more straightforward.



            enter image description here






            share|improve this answer













            There's an option smooth in the makeTriangles function:



            drawScene.rgl(makeTriangles(surf, smooth=TRUE))


            I think the result is equivalent to @user2554330's solution, but this is more straightforward.



            enter image description here







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Nov 13 '18 at 2:05









            Stéphane LaurentStéphane Laurent

            12.7k65392




            12.7k65392













            • Yes, definitely preferable.

              – user2554330
              Nov 13 '18 at 3:16



















            • Yes, definitely preferable.

              – user2554330
              Nov 13 '18 at 3:16

















            Yes, definitely preferable.

            – user2554330
            Nov 13 '18 at 3:16





            Yes, definitely preferable.

            – user2554330
            Nov 13 '18 at 3:16


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53272059%2fdrawing-a-smooth-implicit-surface-with-misc3d%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Florida Star v. B. J. F.

            Error while running script in elastic search , gateway timeout

            Adding quotations to stringified JSON object values