 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi,
Using Steve's and others suggestion of a clear cone and media, I'm
somewhat closer to what I want to achieve, but if you look at the image
where the light crosses the illuminated window, you can see clearly a kind
of dark/black hue or line. It doesn't show so much in the darker areas, so
how do I remove it? Also, I'm getting it wrong where it's supposed to start
fading, can anyone help me with this? I've tried fade_distance in the light
source but can't see any difference between a low setting and a high
setting, ie, I've tried .8 and 3.8.
Thanks for any help.
~Steve~
Here's the code...
light_source { <-10.125, 5.83, 13> colour Yellow * 1.5
area_light <4, 0, 0>, <0, 0, 4>, 4, 4
adaptive 1.5
jitter
fade_distance 3.8
}
#declare Media =
media {
emission .028
intervals 5
samples 1, 10
confidence .9999
variance 1/1000
density{
gradient y
ramp_wave
turbulence 18 //0.3
colour_map{
[0.0 colour <.6, .6, 0.3>]
}
scale <1,1,1>
translate <-10.6, 5.2, 14>
}
}
cone{<0,-7.5,0>20,
<0,1.3,0>.05
pigment{rgb Clear}
interior{media{Media}}
hollow
translate <-10.6, 5.2, 14>
}
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'bb35.jpg' (38 KB)
Preview of image 'bb35.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
try adding
fade_power 2 to the light source as well, this will really increase the
falloff rate
change Clear to rgbt 1 (Clear = rgbf 1 which comes out different fo some
reason)
Also, why are you using emitting media rather than scattering?
-tgq
"25ct" <25c### [at] lineone net> wrote in message news:3bdc1cd8@news.povray.org...
> Hi,
>
> Using Steve's and others suggestion of a clear cone and media, I'm
> somewhat closer to what I want to achieve, but if you look at the image
> where the light crosses the illuminated window, you can see clearly a kind
> of dark/black hue or line. It doesn't show so much in the darker areas, so
> how do I remove it? Also, I'm getting it wrong where it's supposed to
start
> fading, can anyone help me with this? I've tried fade_distance in the
light
> source but can't see any difference between a low setting and a high
> setting, ie, I've tried .8 and 3.8.
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> ~Steve~
>
> Here's the code...
>
> light_source { <-10.125, 5.83, 13> colour Yellow * 1.5
>
> area_light <4, 0, 0>, <0, 0, 4>, 4, 4
> adaptive 1.5
> jitter
>
> fade_distance 3.8
>
> }
>
>
> #declare Media =
> media {
>
> emission .028
> intervals 5
> samples 1, 10
> confidence .9999
> variance 1/1000
> density{
> gradient y
> ramp_wave
> turbulence 18 //0.3
>
> colour_map{
> [0.0 colour <.6, .6, 0.3>]
>
> }
> scale <1,1,1>
> translate <-10.6, 5.2, 14>
> }
> }
>
>
> cone{<0,-7.5,0>20,
> <0,1.3,0>.05
>
> pigment{rgb Clear}
> interior{media{Media}}
>
> hollow
>
> translate <-10.6, 5.2, 14>
> }
>
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Trevor Quayle" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3bdc1fec@news.povray.org...
> try adding
> fade_power 2 to the light source as well, this will really increase the
> falloff rate
> change Clear to rgbt 1 (Clear = rgbf 1 which comes out different fo some
> reason)
> Also, why are you using emitting media rather than scattering?
Aha! Good question Trevor! :) I used Steves code from his site as he
suggested and didn't change it. Thanks for your reply. I'll give it a go
right now.
~Steve~
>
> -tgq
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Also, why are you using emitting media rather than scattering?
Makes more sense to me to use emitting in this particular case. If he were
using scattering, then he shouldn't confine the media to the cone shape. It
may make sense to add fog to the scene to simulate the absorption part of
the media.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
[ http://www.slimeland.com/images/ ]
"Trevor Quayle" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3bdc1fec@news.povray.org...
> try adding
> fade_power 2 to the light source as well, this will really increase the
> falloff rate
> change Clear to rgbt 1 (Clear = rgbf 1 which comes out different fo some
> reason)
> Also, why are you using emitting media rather than scattering?
>
> -tgq
>
>
> "25ct" <25c### [at] lineonenet> wrote in message
news:3bdc1cd8@news.povray.org...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Using Steve's and others suggestion of a clear cone and media, I'm
> > somewhat closer to what I want to achieve, but if you look at the image
> > where the light crosses the illuminated window, you can see clearly a
kind
> > of dark/black hue or line. It doesn't show so much in the darker areas,
so
> > how do I remove it? Also, I'm getting it wrong where it's supposed to
> start
> > fading, can anyone help me with this? I've tried fade_distance in the
> light
> > source but can't see any difference between a low setting and a high
> > setting, ie, I've tried .8 and 3.8.
> >
> > Thanks for any help.
> >
> > ~Steve~
> >
> > Here's the code...
> >
> > light_source { <-10.125, 5.83, 13> colour Yellow * 1.5
> >
> > area_light <4, 0, 0>, <0, 0, 4>, 4, 4
> > adaptive 1.5
> > jitter
> >
> > fade_distance 3.8
> >
> > }
> >
> >
> > #declare Media =
> > media {
> >
> > emission .028
> > intervals 5
> > samples 1, 10
> > confidence .9999
> > variance 1/1000
> > density{
> > gradient y
> > ramp_wave
> > turbulence 18 //0.3
> >
> > colour_map{
> > [0.0 colour <.6, .6, 0.3>]
> >
> > }
> > scale <1,1,1>
> > translate <-10.6, 5.2, 14>
> > }
> > }
> >
> >
> > cone{<0,-7.5,0>20,
> > <0,1.3,0>.05
> >
> > pigment{rgb Clear}
> > interior{media{Media}}
> >
> > hollow
> >
> > translate <-10.6, 5.2, 14>
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Slime" <noo### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3bdc595d@news.povray.org...
> > Also, why are you using emitting media rather than scattering?
>
>
> Makes more sense to me to use emitting in this particular case. If he were
> using scattering, then he shouldn't confine the media to the cone shape.
It
> may make sense to add fog to the scene to simulate the absorption part of
> the media.
Also, when I was using emitting media, the whole scene was taking just 6
minutes to render, but now that I've changed it to scattering, it just
overheated my CPU at 90 deg c, (the alarm went off), on line 39 of
480........ wait for it....... 1 hour 27 minutes later! :o(
I'll try your suggestion Slime. Thanks.
~Steve~
>
> - Slime
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/images/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> overheated my CPU at 90 deg c, (the alarm went off), on line 39 of
> 480........ wait for it....... 1 hour 27 minutes later! :o(
Uh! If I were you, I will install as fast as posible a proper heatsink
and fan to the CPU... 90C is way too high temp for any processor, and
doing intesive CPU activity can give you a burned processor. Believe me,
I know what I'm talking about... I burned my first AMD because the
provider installed an undersized CPU fan. Now, the replacement one, with
a proper fan, never reaches 50 deg C.
Take care!
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote in message
news:3BDC7D89.282E1C53@ignorancia.org...
> > overheated my CPU at 90 deg c, (the alarm went off), on line 39 of
> > 480........ wait for it....... 1 hour 27 minutes later! :o(
>
> Uh! If I were you, I will install as fast as posible a proper heatsink
> and fan to the CPU... 90C is way too high temp for any processor, and
> doing intesive CPU activity can give you a burned processor. Believe me,
> I know what I'm talking about... I burned my first AMD because the
> provider installed an undersized CPU fan. Now, the replacement one, with
> a proper fan, never reaches 50 deg C.
>
> Take care!
Thanks for your concern Jaime, I will. The fan is the proper one,
it's the heatsink that's the problem. The guy that put this motherboard in 6
months ago *did* mutter something about "...the heatsink should be
alright". Huh! Guess who I'm seeing tomorrow.... >:o(
;)
~Steve~
>
>
> --
> Jaime Vives Piqueres
>
> La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
> http://www.ignorancia.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
