I completely rewrote the textures, and I think it looks nice at a distance
now, but I'm still not sure it's quite right up close. I did make the
crackle pattern much smaller, but also moved the camera closer to the ground
so that it is now at eye-level.

Kevin, thanks for your sky code, but I ended up making my own from scratch,
as I wanted something a bit faster. The clouds seen in this image are made
of four textured planes, so it renders quite fast.

Any comments?

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Feb 16)
POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'desert2.jpg' (99 KB)

Preview of image 'desert2.jpg'

"Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote in message
news:3c937d3c@news.povray.org...
> I completely rewrote the textures, and I think it looks nice at a distance
> now, but I'm still not sure it's quite right up close. I did make the
> crackle pattern much smaller, but also moved the camera closer to the
ground
> so that it is now at eye-level.

Looks much better, the bands of different rock look more obvious.

I think the ground normal would look ok if it was mud but I don't think rock
would form that sort of shape as that normally comes from wet mud drying
out, which I don't think the rock would do.

> Kevin, thanks for your sky code, but I ended up making my own from
scratch,
> as I wanted something a bit faster. The clouds seen in this image are made
> of four textured planes, so it renders quite fast.

No probs, I'm sure that the planes are much much faster, not sure why I went
for media with such little effect. Oh well.

Kev

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> 
> I completely rewrote the textures, and I think it looks nice at a distance
> now, but I'm still not sure it's quite right up close. I did make the
> crackle pattern much smaller, but also moved the camera closer to the ground
> so that it is now at eye-level.
> 
> Kevin, thanks for your sky code, but I ended up making my own from scratch,
> as I wanted something a bit faster. The clouds seen in this image are made
> of four textured planes, so it renders quite fast.
> 
> Any comments?

It looks nice i think, how did you create the heightfield?

The medium range mountains seem a bit smooth to me, probably because the
heightfield resolution is limited.  Maybe use some additional normal for 
roughness.

There will be a problem BTW: As soon as 'Al' walks in the foreground his
shadow will reveal the trick with the normal. ;-)

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 13 Mar. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

I use a trick for heightfields where I set a black and white image in an
art program, use the airbrush, and blend the daylights out of it.  If you
select a specific shade of gray and brush a few areas with that color, it
will produce equally tall "buttes" in the skyline.  But you guys probably
already know that.

Cheers!

Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" wrote:
> It looks nice i think, how did you create the heightfield?

It's made from a function. The function basically consists of several
clipped f_noise3d funtions added together, and with a f_ridged_mf function
and some additional noise added too.

> The medium range mountains seem a bit smooth to me, probably
> because the heightfield resolution is limited.

I'm not sure which ones you're referring to. I think myself that the ones on
the right look better than the ones on the left, due to the direction from
where the light is coming. Due to the strong contrasts on the right ones,
they get a lot of depth, which looks cool IMO.

> There will be a problem BTW: As soon as 'Al' walks in the
> foreground his shadow will reveal the trick with the normal. ;-)

Huh? I don't use very big normal patterns, so there shouldn't be much of a
problem.

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Feb 16)
POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

"Kevin Ellis" wrote:
> Looks much better, the bands of different rock look more obvious.

Thanks! Well the bands weren't there at all in the last version, only a
slope pattern...

> I think the ground normal would look ok if it was mud
> but I don't think rock would form that sort of shape
> as that normally comes from wet mud drying out, which
> I don't think the rock would do.

*brakes down*

Buhu... - you're right - I admit it, it's all wrong! All wrong I tell you!

Seriously, textures are my weak point in POV-Ray. I'm not good at
visualizing how things are supposed to look, or to get ideas for textures
into code form. At least it requires a big effort for me to get textures to
look the way I want.

But anyway, please have a look at my next version. :)

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Feb 16)
POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message