On 13-3-2017 15:21, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
>>>> The vegetation was modelled with Dryad, a little free application from
>>>> stanford.edu
>>>> http://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/dryad-010908.html that seems
>>>> to have disappeared from the net.
>
> If it's at all possible, that would be a great application to share with folks,
> since vegetation is whole area of its own, that can be a HUGE time sink.  Since
> it was being given away for free at the time , I don't know if you need any
> other permission from the author to share the version you have.
>

I had not thought about the Wayback Machine. Fortunately, I have Stephen 
to take care of those details ;-)

>
>> I am always happy when people nitpick. I like to do it myself too with
>> others and believe it is to everybody's good :-)
>
> Indeed.   Constructive nitpicking, like "This here has a problem, which can be
> fixed if you do X, Y, or Z...." helps people learn to look at their scenes with
> a more discerning and critical eye, and most importantly, LEARN how to avoid and
> fix those problems.  This makes for a stronger raytracing community.  :)

I totally agree. I guess that about 70% of my POV-Ray skills come from 
the examples and help from others. And my learning curve is still quite 
steep.

>
>>> * The tree trunks are too straight
> Maybe.  They're alien trees.  I'd perhaps say "they're all too uniform /
> similar."

Probably, those trees will remain straight, but there needs to be much 
more variation in tree/bush types.

>
>>> * The trees have not enough color variations (how many different tree models?
>>> maybe changing some of them for a new one with slightly different color would
>>> solve this)
>
> Coding good looking variation is definitely a tremendous skill.

I have been lazy (like so often) and postponed that work to phase 2. ;-)

>
>
> Once again Thomas - great landscape, and a very nice atmosphere.   I always
> enjoy looking at your scenes, and have something to learn, and a level of
> accomplishment to strive for in my own work.  I really like the higher-contrast,
> crisper, clearer foreground to the right which really adds a sense of depth to
> the scene.   Perhaps having some of that on the left might help the scene "pop"
> more...
>

Thank you very much indeed. :-)

The media at the left of the scene is a bit thicker than on the right. 
Partly because the shore is a tiny bit farther away but mostly because 
of the turbulence of the media, like mist shrouds thinning out or 
thickening locally. It was important to me that at least some part of 
the scene were crisper.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message