 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ok, I added some more details, changed the color of the goo (it's more
a gas than goo now, I think) and tilted the camera a bit. This image
took nearly two days to render, mostly because there are over 5000
objects in the scene, each of them is either a media container or is a
reflective surface with a normal. The rest of the rendering time is of
course due to radiosity and focal blur.
I know that the segments of the flexible tubes (should be the right term
for it, according to dict.leo.org) at the top look wrong, but I was too
lazy to get it right. Maybe in the next image...
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'nukecontainer3.jpg' (93 KB)
Preview of image 'nukecontainer3.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Please share with us what may be wrong with the segments....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Xplo Eristotle
Subject: Re: Green radioactive goo container again
Date: 12 Mar 2003 22:34:43
Message: <3e6ffc53@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Timon Christl wrote:
> Ok, I added some more details, changed the color of the goo (it's more a
> gas than goo now, I think) and tilted the camera a bit. This image took
> nearly two days to render, mostly because there are over 5000 objects in
> the scene, each of them is either a media container or is a reflective
> surface with a normal. The rest of the rendering time is of course due
> to radiosity and focal blur.
It looks really cool.. except for that spotlight on the floor. That, and
the fact that the brightly-glowing gas doesn't appear to actually
illuminate anything.
I'm sure that adding decent-quality radiosity would make the render time
obscene, but perhaps the floor could be changed to look interesting?
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Some of the JPEG artifacts looks really bad. This image really deserves a
PNG version!
--
light_source#macro G(E)sphere{z+E*y*5e-3.04rotate-z*E*6pigment{rgbt#end{
20*y-10#local n=162;1}#while(n)#local n=n-.3;G(n)x}}G(-n).7}}#end//GregE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Andrew Coppin
Subject: Re: Green radioactive goo container again
Date: 13 Mar 2003 17:16:17
Message: <3e710331@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> This image
> took nearly two days to render
Clearly it *was* worth it...
I didn't rate the first one all that much, but this is way cooler.
Andrew.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Greg Edwards wrote:
> Some of the JPEG artifacts looks really bad. This image really deserves a
> PNG version!
>
Here it comes:
http://www.christltimon.de/img/pages/pov/nukecontainer3.png (1MB).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Apache wrote:
> Please share with us what may be wrong with the segments....
I could go into a lot of detail now, but basically the problem is this:
When placing objects along a spline by evenly subdividing the time
range, you don't get evenly placed objects in general. You would either
have to "warp" the time parameter to take that into account (doing so
exactly involves a ton of nasty math), or to do something like what Rune
did in his spline neck macro (I could have used that, but didn't find it
on my hard-disk anymore).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
