 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:C+vjPEcZkwirthwHPTNSSxwgE4zg@4ax.com Glen Berry wrote:
> I'm just not sure how the "horizontal" viewing angle applies to the
> vertical dimension in this case.
>
Lazy as I am I didn't calulate anything. In the default situation with a
images the only difference is that the aspect ratio is 3/4. As if you
angle. The diagonal angle stays the same.
Ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran <tra### [at] inapg inrafr> wrote in message
news:3ce3eec5$1@news.povray.org...
Yeah, because you specified up right and direction, that will determine the
angle. In this case direction is the same length as up, which means you'll have
a 90 degree vertical angle (i.e. both the top and bottom of the view fustrum
will be at 45 degrees from the direction, so 90 degrees in total).
This means your horizontal view angle will be
2*degrees(atan2(image_width/image_height,1))
but now I'm just trying to blind you all with maths :)
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
truly inspiring, gilles. i don't think i've ever seen anybody
with such a great combined talent in art AND programming.
miker
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I rendered this xfrog tree with high resolution.
You can see some limitations of the standard xfrog trees, but no leaf is
floating in the air.
Norbert
> No you're right. There are some tiny twigs but looking closer I can see
now
> that some leaves actually float in the air. Weird. I'll have to check the
> model.
>
> G.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'xfrog1.jpg' (64 KB)
Download 'xfrog2.jpg' (74 KB)
Preview of image 'xfrog1.jpg'
Preview of image 'xfrog2.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Christoph Hormann
Subject: Re: Not for sale anymore (120 kbu)
Date: 16 May 2002 15:24:25
Message: <3CE40767.97F8C656@gmx.de>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Norbert Kern wrote:
>
> I rendered this xfrog tree with high resolution.
> You can see some limitations of the standard xfrog trees, but no leaf is
> floating in the air.
That really does not look good, are those lines produced by broken
image_map textures? I think the 'maketree approach' is probably better
for modelling leaves than using partly transparent textures, despite
higher triangle counts it could even be faster.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 05 May. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph , you are right. I do not like the leafes of the standard Xfrog
trees too.
But you can also define leafes out of triangles within Xfrog.
Therefore you can make the best conifers with this program.
Or can you show me a better mesh pine?
Norbert
> That really does not look good, are those lines produced by broken
> image_map textures? I think the 'maketree approach' is probably better
> for modelling leaves than using partly transparent textures, despite
> higher triangle counts it could even be faster.
>
> Christoph
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'xfrog3.jpg' (67 KB)
Preview of image 'xfrog3.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran schrieb:
> Here's a little pic I made.
High!
Must be somewhere in southern Afghanistan - once a top travel destination among
hippie 2CV enthusiasts, probably near the Herat-Kandahar highway between
Daulatabad and Girishk! Are the trees in fact tamarisks?
See you in Khyberspace!
Yadgar
Now playing: Halali (Zara-Thustra - neo-Wagnerian German New Wave!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Christoph Hormann
Subject: Re: Not for sale anymore (120 kbu)
Date: 16 May 2002 16:54:55
Message: <3CE41C9F.90540568@gmx.de>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Norbert Kern wrote:
>
> Christoph , you are right. I do not like the leafes of the standard Xfrog
> trees too.
> But you can also define leafes out of triangles within Xfrog.
> Therefore you can make the best conifers with this program.
> Or can you show me a better mesh pine?
I have not worked much on coniferous trees, but the growth of trunk and
twigs in this one is far from being realistic.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 05 May. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> but no leaf is floating in the air.
Actually I beg to differ, take a look at the blown up images attached. Again
I think this is a result of sizing the image down from its original
resolution. The small twigs get so small, smaller than a pixel, that they
are left out entirely.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'floating Leaves2.jpg' (24 KB)
Download 'floating Leaves1.jpg' (27 KB)
Preview of image 'floating Leaves2.jpg'
Preview of image 'floating Leaves1.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news: 3ce405c9@news.povray.org...
> I rendered this xfrog tree with high resolution.
> You can see some limitations of the standard xfrog trees, but no leaf is
> floating in the air.
In fact I'm really not sure of that... These are 5th level branches and I
couldn't see them at very high res. Also I had changed the leaf model and
some bits of the tree structure. Now I've stopped the growth at the 4th
level and it looks much better (see pic below).
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'leavesdetail.jpg' (17 KB)
Preview of image 'leavesdetail.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
