-s0da- wrote:

> what a GREAT answer.  Seriously.
> 
> never looked at it that way.
> 
> Thanks seriously..for the input!
> 
> "Remco de Korte" <rem### [at] onwijscom> wrote in message
> news:3F7CB6BC.D5AFD70E@onwijs.com...
> 
>>-s0da- wrote:
>>
>>>well...what I'm actually trying to do is simulate brush laying
>>>in a metal torch type frame.
>>>
>>>So I guess detail wouldn't matter...I could probalby even
>>>just make a good enough texture/material that might work,
>>>as the flame will probably cancel out any detail of the sticks
>>>anyways.
>>>
>>
>>My idea would be to either take some irregularly placed cylinders (that
>>would be easy in a loop or macro) or make a torch that is built from
>>fairly straight twigs tied together (just a bunch of cylinders with
>>toruses).
>>Add some 'noise' and nobody will probably notice that you have defied
>>reality. 8)
>>
>>Seriously: I don't think realism (either photographic or physical) makes
>>a great picture or animation... Reality can often be quite boring,
>>especially the aspects that are easy to recreate in a program like
>>POVRay ;)
>>
>>Good luck,
>>
>>Remco

Random objects, placed without regards to physics, sometimes works well. 
  In my War of the Worlds picture 
(http://www.geocities.com/meteoricshipyards/WotW640.jpg) the rubble is 
placed randomly (except for the I-beams on the street - I made sure they 
were flat on the street, but the angle and placement was random).  The 
rubble is just random sized boxes, and I-beam objects, some still 
"falling" and in the air - but I was pleased with the final effect.

Tom A.

Post a reply to this message