 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> IMO, the shadows the objects are casting on the ground look a bit to soft for
> shadows made by direct sunlight. (maybe i'm wrong)
Sun light_source diameter should be 1 at a distance of 100.
K.K.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news:3990A64C.E3CBB127@dod.no...
|
| Yeah, as he said... ;-O Anyhow, here is my radiosity test. Of course
| this one use caustics and photons as well. I just wonder why it doesn't
| show up. *grumble*
|
| It's just a simple test to see if I got some caustics and reflections
| showing up, but albeit no such thing.
Well I like the way the water is aligning with the box anyhow, like it's the
only thing causing the surface waves.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
[...]
>
> It's just a simple test to see if I got some caustics and reflections
> showing up, but albeit no such thing.
>
> As usual it's a total ripoff of other peoples code, except for the
> simple object.
>
Well, not bad for throwing together different things :-) The water suffers much
from the regular structure, you could try RMF for that.
I wonder about the different material for the outside/inside of the table.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I wonder how it would change lighting/radiosity effects, if you use *real*
> surface turbulence (isosurfaces) instead of normal statements.
The answer to your question...
I backed off on the brightness(1.095) and of course the pigment function
is different from what Gilles had as the normal. Also I only did the
cylinders(laziness).
function{
pigment{
agate
turbulence 0.24
color_map{[0 rgb 1][.75 rgb 0][1 rgb<.3,.95,.3>]}
scale 0.3
}
}
The pigment is later multiplied by 0.15 which cuts into the surface too
much
but it looks neat anyhow.
Total Time: 4 hours 29 minutes 43.0 seconds
Peak memory used: 10044266 bytes
PII 233 , 96 mb
--
Phil
...coffee?...yes please! extra sugar,extra cream...Thank you.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'radiosity_test_file.jpg' (81 KB)
Preview of image 'radiosity_test_file.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kari Kivisalo wrote:
>
> Christoph Hormann wrote:
> > IMO, the shadows the objects are casting on the ground look a bit to soft for
> > shadows made by direct sunlight. (maybe i'm wrong)
>
> Sun light_source diameter should be 1 at a distance of 100.
>
> K.K.
<taking out calculator> arctan(1/100) => 0.57 deg.
Yes, that seems ok. ( sun usually is about 30 arcminutes )
I think Gilles's sun is much larger, but i'm not very experienced with area
lights.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> If you people don't stop kissing Gilles' ass, he's gonna get a rash.
It really hurts now. Hard to code standing up ;-)
> But this is NOT an awesome pic, nor does it look even
> remotely photographic. It's just a radiosity test with a bunch of simple
> primitives scattered around. I'll grant that it's interesting, but most
> of us could probably have made it ourselves.
My point exactly. With the current Megapov implementation of radiosity, it's
become very easy to use. Now the effect obtained in these tests, while
highly satisfying, are far from the "real" thing. There's a LOT of room for
improvement. Of course, it's still hard to tell if the shortcomings of the
pics come from the scene code (a quick hack, with mostly standard settings)
or from the radiosity algorithm itself. For instance, I've been totally
unable to reproduce the simple (?) effect seen here :
http://www.3dluvr.com/marcosss/sky6s.jpg
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Don't get me wrong.. he's a badass mutha and I know it as well as the
> rest of you. That city pic he did for the IRTC made me weep like a
> little girl. But this is NOT an awesome pic, nor does it look even
> remotely photographic. It's just a radiosity test with a bunch of simple
> primitives scattered around. I'll grant that it's interesting, but most
> of us could probably have made it ourselves. All I'm saying is, show
> some sense of perspective.
you may feel that whenever Gilles posts, we all go crazy, and usually with
good reason.
as for the recent rad test images, we got so excited about those, because
quite a few of us have been playing with rad lighting, and Gilles happens to
have done a better job than most of us had managed (not for lack of trying)
if those images had been posted by anyone else (source included!), we would
have been equally happy :))
you try suffering with long render times for a few days, desperately trying
to accomplish a particular technique with only some success, then someone
gives you the moon on a stick. and tells you exactly how he did it.
Rick
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> Kari Kivisalo wrote:
>
> > Sun light_source diameter should be 1 at a distance of 100.
>
> Yes, that seems ok. ( sun usually is about 30 arcminutes )
Sun radius 696 000km, distance 150 000 000km.
2*696000/150000000=1/108
K.K.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kari Kivisalo wrote:
>
> Sun radius 696 000km, distance 150 000 000km.
>
> 2*696000/150000000=1/108
Reminds me : in my "nature" IRTC entry (fmnat.jpg), the scene was
modelled in centimeters, and I've put an area light at the REAL
earth-sun distance :-)))
15 000 000 000 000 cm !
(won 2nd price)
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> >
> [...]
> >
> > It's just a simple test to see if I got some caustics and reflections
> > showing up, but albeit no such thing.
> >
> > As usual it's a total ripoff of other peoples code, except for the
> > simple object.
> >
>
> Well, not bad for throwing together different things :-) The water suffers much
> from the regular structure, you could try RMF for that.
Yeah, well ... I am not too good with RMFs :-)
> I wonder about the different material for the outside/inside of the table.
There are no different material for the outside/inside of the table,
which by the way is no table but a box that is a difference of 3 boxes.
Like this:
difference {
box { <-5, -5, -5>, <5, 5, 5> }
box { <-4.5, -4.5, -4.5>, <4.5, 4.5, 4.5> }
box { <-6, -4, -4>, <6, 4, 4> }
box { <-6, -4, -4>, <6, 4, 4> rotate 90*y}
}
The reason it is different colors on the "inside" than the "outside"
must be because of reflections of the sun from the water plane, which by
the way is media water...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
+47 90 62 71 78 DoD#2101, DoDRT#017, NIC#015, PJ#006, OGM#007
azo### [at] dodno, Ducati M600, Clementine Ubesudlet: Aldri eid en J&%#PS.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
