Density problem

[Garth Thornton]

Hello Garth,

And in this case your sphere is much larger, so it needs either bigger scales or bigger density.

What do you mean with "larger"; it's at last the visible size in the holon window relative to the other holons, not the scale or other values, right? And "so it needs either bigger scales": Bigger scales will result in a much more larger sphere; how can I understand this?

Yes, I mean the visible size. For constructors, the 3 holon scales only affect the size if the metamorph Rescale option is checked. But they do affect the automatic density, just as for iterators. So I like to adjust them to sort of match the constructor size, and do minor adjustments with Density, rather than huge variations in Density. (There are two reasons for this: Density doesn't have unlimited range, and it makes the holon window easier to understand and use if the holon boxes aren't all equally large.) Of course if you use Rescale to change the dimensions of the constructor then you have to use the 3 scales for that and use Density to do all the density adjustment.

The holon densities should really be automatically adjusted for constructor sizes, and I want to do this but it would break compatibility badly so it has to wait for a major overhaul that breaks other compatibilities too.

This would be great, I'm curious about it; perhaps at Christmas?

I expect only a minor update in this timeframe, as I've been working on something else, so the big changes will take longer.

...and render more, and see if it either increases the average pixel rates or starts filling in the problem areas faster.

As I read in the XD help, "For Chaos renders, the Rate indicator shows the number of new pixels plotted each second. New pixels are those in front of existing pixels." So I would think the average rate is a gauge for development of the pic; it should be equivalent, not contrary equivalent. Decreasing rate would mean it happens just once a little progress; it should be increasing to fill the Problem areas, isn't it?

For Julia and other Fractal metamorphs ending in 'T', there is iteration within the metamorph that is not random, so the rate does not fall evenly but can go all over the place as the metamorph works through one pass of the combinations. So what I mean by average is that you have to watch it for maybe ten seconds or more, and decide if it's more or less than before. More is better, although it might not be helping the problem areas much.

This is why the picture window status bar shows extra numbers for these Tree metamorphs. When you have no constructors or only small constructors with no Max Iterations limit, it takes longer and longer to work through each 'Pass'. But when there are larger constructors, especially with small Max Iterations to keep the fractal structure cleaner, the Pass increases by more than 1 every second. In this case you don't need to watch more than a few seconds because the rate is already averaging multiple passes and is consistent enough. Also it can take a while to see visible improvement in the problem areas.

With Julias (even more than other types) it really is a matter of experimenting to find what is worth rendering and what is not. Sometimes I start rendering something with potential, but after a while I decide it will never work, and throw it away.