| OCR Text |
Show 118 -Q1P+1,0,J (0 ' v) -1 1 = I: I: b ( 1 , 0) ( beta 1 beta2· 0) v. . r=-2 s=-2 I' "-1r,J+s bs ( beta 1, beta2·, v) 1 1 + I: br(beta1, beta2; 0) Yi+r,j+s b1,0)(beta1, beta2; v) r=-2 s=-2 (XIV.8) where beta1 = v alPha1(i+1)_1,j + (1-v) alPha1(i+1)_1,j_1 and beta2 = v alpha 1 .. + (1-v) alpha 1. . 1J 1,J- 1 = v alPha?(i+1)_1,j + (1-v) alPha2(i+1)_1,j_1 = v alPha21·J· + (1-v) alpha2 .. 1,J- 1 for 0 < u < and 0 < v < 1. From equation (VII.6), it can be seen that the first term of equation (XIV.8) is equal to equation (XIV.7) scaled by a factor of beta 1, whereas the second term of each equation is identical. Thus, QPIO(O v) is not a multiple of QP,0)(1 v) and hence the unit -1+1,J ' -1j " tangent vector is not continuous. Thus the surface with continuous shape parameters does not behave analogously to the corresponding curve. Noting that the lack of continuity occurs with the continuous shape parameters, perhaps this problem could be overcome by a higher order blending of the shape parameters. The present piecewise bilinear blending could be replaced by piecewise bicubic blending for unit tangent vector continuity, or by bicubic spline blending, following Gordon's [11] spline-blended surface interpolation, for curvature vector continuity. |