Re: pm3d question

[Ethan A M. <merritt@u.washington.edu>]

On Sunday 20 November 2005 07:22 am, Johannes Zellner wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 07:18:55PM -0800, Ethan A Merritt wrote:
> > Can anyone explain to me why the two surfaces produced
> > by the command below are colored so differently?
> >
> >   splot x with pm3d, y with pm3d
>
> btw.: did you see the usefulness of the "set pm3d depth" patch with
> such intersecting surfaces?

That was, in fact, why I drew this plot in the first place.
I was trying to determine if there were any artifacts near the
line of intersection, but I got distracted by the coloring
glitch.

Have you figured out any reason why the "set hidden3d" 
apparently runs much slower on your machines than on mine?
If there really is a speed bottleneck in the code, I'd like
to try to pin it down and fix it.  Then we can go back to
discussing if there are any other drawbacks to merging your
pm3d sort code with the general hidden3d capability.

I hope the following conceptual example makes it clear why
I think this would be useful:

f(x,y) = theory1_prediction(x,y)
g(x,y) = theory2_prediction(x,y)

set hidden3d
splot f(x,y) with pm3d, g(x,y) with pm3d, \
      "experiment" using 1:2:3 with points pointsize 3 pt 6


-- 
Ethan A Merritt
Biomolecular Structure Center
University of Washington, Seattle 98195-7742