 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] dod no, Ducati M600, Clementine Ubesudlet: Aldri eid en J&%#PS.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kari Kivisalo wrote:
>
[...]
>
> Sun radius 696 000km, distance 150 000 000km.
>
> 2*696000/150000000=1/108
>
> K.K.
If you want to be excact, you should also include, that sun-earth distance
varies quite a lot during the year (it's nearer in winter IIRC) :-)
Furthermore, i'm not sure, whether the atmosphere influences things (both sun
and moon seem larger when near the horizon)
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> For instance, I've been totally
> unable to reproduce the simple (?) effect seen here :
> http://www.3dluvr.com/marcosss/sky6s.jpg
Bigger picture.
http://www.3dluvr.com/marcosss/sky6.jpg
I tried but there seems to a problem that
may require patching the source. Full details
later if I succeed.
K.K.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'discs_1.jpg' (31 KB)
Preview of image 'discs_1.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I tried recreating the general look of this scene, but I can't get
radiosity to work like that. The main problem is getting the shadow
bright enough without washing out everything else. Perhaps a cheat to
increase the brightness of radiosity when testing a shadow ray could
overcome this...
Source is going to text.scene-files.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'radiocity.jpg' (18 KB)
Preview of image 'radiocity.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
>
> 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
I'm not sure that pic is very accurate, actually. It LOOKS good.. but
you'll note that the brownish light that "bleeds" from the cylinders
onto the discs actually appears to darken, not lighten them. I might be
missing something here but that doesn't seem right to me.
If you look at the gradient along the top edge, it seems to me that the
light source is fairly close to the scene, and fairly low. Dunno if
that's any help.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike <Ama### [at] aolcom> wrote in message news:3991B0AB.ACDC6F8B@aol.com...
> I tried recreating the general look of this scene, but I can't get
> radiosity to work like that. The main problem is getting the shadow
> bright enough without washing out everything else. Perhaps a cheat to
> increase the brightness of radiosity when testing a shadow ray could
> overcome this...
At least you're looks better than mine. I've given up for now. Got
frustrated...
David
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'rad_test_Aug.jpg' (18 KB)
Preview of image 'rad_test_Aug.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Can't really tell with this one so much, maybe because there's so few
objects in there, and I think that jpeg's playing havock with the top
of the box.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
6:24pm up 25 days, 16:50, 2 users, load average: 2.22, 1.94, 1.52
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
actually, great images aside, the best thing about gilles, is his
willingness to share. there are other great povers that seem to be more
reluctant to give out their "secrets", while the rest of us regular
povers will usually bend over backwards to share a technique or a
texture or an object. so thanks gilles.
Gilles Tran wrote:
>
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
