 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nothing earthshattering here, just a test of a macro I made after
looking at the source on a few DarkTree shaders. It's simply a
f_ridged_mf function with different offset, noise, scale, color and bump
size settings. I like it because it doesn't look "POV-like" for some
reason.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'shader.jpg' (45 KB)
Preview of image 'shader.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nice Dave I like the middle one the best. BTW Long time no see.
"Dave Dunn" <poi### [at] aol com> wrote in message
news:3D5DB601.C180803D@aol.com...
> Nothing earthshattering here, just a test of a macro I made after
> looking at the source on a few DarkTree shaders. It's simply a
> f_ridged_mf function with different offset, noise, scale, color and bump
> size settings. I like it because it doesn't look "POV-like" for some
> reason.
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lovely. My favourite is the bottom left one. May we have a look at the
source?
/ Martin
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Martin Magnusson wrote:
> Lovely. My favourite is the bottom left one. May we have a look at the
> source?
Thanks for your interest. I will post in povray.text.scene.files.
Dave
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3D5DB601.C180803D@aol.com>, Dave Dunn <poi### [at] aolcom>
wrote:
> Nothing earthshattering here, just a test of a macro I made after
> looking at the source on a few DarkTree shaders. It's simply a
> f_ridged_mf function with different offset, noise, scale, color and bump
> size settings. I like it because it doesn't look "POV-like" for some
> reason.
I too have been messing with custom 'shaders'..
Is there any way to map specularity etc to a function? All of my
attempts to do so so far have been met with error.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Elijah Sarver wrote:
> I too have been messing with custom 'shaders'..
>
> Is there any way to map specularity etc to a function? All of my
> attempts to do so so far have been met with error.
Hmm, hope this doesn't get too far off topic, but I believe there was a debate
a few months back on povray.general about the concept of finish maps. I don't
know what the technical limitations are on actually programming them into POV,
but it seems to make logical sense to have pigment/normal/finish all accept
the same patterns - this is especially useful for "cutaway," that is,
partially-transparent patterns. The conventional wisdom is to simply make a
texture map with various materials, but that is the hard way IMO.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3D5E61F0.618B8540@aol.com>, Dave Dunn <poi### [at] aolcom>
wrote:
> Hmm, hope this doesn't get too far off topic, but I believe there was a debate
> a few months back on povray.general about the concept of finish maps. I don't
> know what the technical limitations are on actually programming them into POV,
> but it seems to make logical sense to have pigment/normal/finish all accept
> the same patterns - this is especially useful for "cutaway," that is,
> partially-transparent patterns. The conventional wisdom is to simply make a
> texture map with various materials, but that is the hard way IMO.
One possibility would be to allow you to specify a function for any
float, color, or vector value in the finish...would that satisfy you? ;-)
There would be a small speed penalty from the overhead of choosing
between a function and a constant, but an enormous increase in
flexibility. It would require lots of rewriting though.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff wrote:
> One possibility would be to allow you to specify a function for any
> float, color, or vector value in the finish...would that satisfy you? ;-)
> There would be a small speed penalty from the overhead of choosing
> between a function and a constant, but an enormous increase in
> flexibility. It would require lots of rewriting though.
That is exactly what I was thinking. Since I have finally "come around" to using
functions, I like them better than plain old pattern identifiers anyway, if only for
consistency's sake. Now if we only had a null pattern identifier to make empy spaces
in normal maps, but that of course is a different story... ; }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3D5F015C.594862FF@aol.com>, Dave Dunn <poi### [at] aolcom>
wrote:
> That is exactly what I was thinking. Since I have finally "come
> around" to using functions, I like them better than plain old pattern
> identifiers anyway, if only for consistency's sake. Now if we only
> had a null pattern identifier to make empy spaces in normal maps, but
> that of course is a different story... ; }
Just specify a solid pattern (a function pattern with a constant value).
Normal perturbation only uses the *change* in a pattern, a constant
pattern won't affect the normal. Try the checkers pattern as a normal
sometime, the normal only changes at the cube boundaries.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Christoph Hormann
Subject: Re: Function-Based Shader Macro
Date: 18 Aug 2002 04:49:09
Message: <3D5F5F85.A63CB5A@gmx.de>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> One possibility would be to allow you to specify a function for any
> float, color, or vector value in the finish...would that satisfy you? ;-)
This has already been done in mlpov (a french patch):
Dans la partie finish d'une texture, au lieu d'un float ou d'une couleur
fonction. Attention il faut que la fonction retourne une valeur/une
finish {
[uv_mapping]
ambient COLOR | VECTOR_FUNCTION_IDENT | VECTOR_FUNCTION
diffuse Amount | FLOAT_FUNCTION_IDENT | FLOAT_FUNCTION
brilliance Amount | FLOAT_FUNCTION_IDENT | FLOAT_FUNCTION
phong Amount | FLOAT_FUNCTION_IDENT | FLOAT_FUNCTION
phong_size Amount | FLOAT_FUNCTION_IDENT | FLOAT_FUNCTION
specular Amount | FLOAT_FUNCTION_IDENT | FLOAT_FUNCTION
roughness Amount | FLOAT_FUNCTION_IDENT | FLOAT_FUNCTION (Cf. warning)
reflection COLOR | VECTOR_FUNCTION_IDENT | VECTOR_FUNCTION
reflection {
Color_Reflection_Min | VECTOR_FUNCTION_IDENT | VECTOR_FUNCTION
,
Color_Reflection_Max | VECTOR_FUNCTION_IDENT | VECTOR_FUNCTION
falloff FLOAT_FALLOFF | FLOAT_FUNCTION_IDENT | FLOAT_FUNCTION
exponent FLOAT_EXPONENT | FLOAT_FUNCTION_IDENT | FLOAT_FUNCTION (Cf.
warning)
}
irid {
Irid_Amount | FLOAT_FUNCTION_IDENT | FLOAT_FUNCTION
thickness Amount | FLOAT_FUNCTION_IDENT | FLOAT_FUNCTION
}
}
See: news://news.zoo-logique.org/aj8g57%241i8%241%40hebus.grizzlydev.com
I have not tried it yet, but it seems to work. It would of course be good
if the functions would also take into account the other intersection
information (i.e. normal, ray direction).
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 13 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
