Oops, I forgot to tell my newsclient NOT to split the
attachment in several posts. 

Hope this doesn't any cause problems.

Post a reply to this message

Lutz-Peter Hooge wrote:
> 
> Hope this doesn't any cause problems.

It does.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 28 Feb. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:

> > Hope this doesn't any cause problems.
Ok, I cancelled the previous messages. 
So here another try:

fullsize and less compressed version here (180k):
<http://www.hoogi.de/lutz-peter/extern/orbital.html>

Started as yet another planet image, than decided that I had to place
something in all that black space.

The planet is completely procedural, especially the clouds could probably
look better if I used an image-map, but that would be cheating. ;-)

Two problems: the container of one of the explosion-medias is visible.
I almost always run into this problem when different media containers 
are overlapping :-( It is possible to ged rid of this problems with 
different media setttings (I used the default)?

And I originally wanted to use motion blur on the UFO, but MegaPOV 1.0 
doesn't have that feature anymore. Is there any Pov 3.5 patch that 
supports motion blur?

Image took ~1:45h at 1024x768 on XP1700+ (rendered in MegaPov 1.0)

Lutz-Peter

Post a reply to this message

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'orbital_povnews.jpg' (62 KB)

Preview of image 'orbital_povnews.jpg'

Lutz-Peter Hooge <lpv### [at] gmxde> wrote:

> fullsize and less compressed version here (180k):
> <http://www.hoogi.de/lutz-peter/extern/orbital.html>

Hm, according to my logs, the large version was viewed over 70 
times, but no comment. Is there something wrong with the image? 
Of course negative criticism is also welcome!

Lutz-Peter

Post a reply to this message

Lutz-Peter Hooge wrote:
>Hm, according to my logs, the large version was viewed over 70
>times, but no comment. Is there something wrong with the image?
>Of course negative criticism is also welcome!

Nice image, I like the painted earth, the spacecraft, and the overall
layout.

It's remarkable how many people just look and never comment. Here are some
suggestions, FWIW:

The beam seems a little too solid, maybe try media.
The explosion is pretty, but maybe a little too symetrical and elongated.
The stars are a little dim.
Maybe a bit more fade at the planet's atmosphere edge.
The red rectangles on the spacecraft look a little too saturated, and the
angled torus shapes seem oddly shaded, lit on both sides.
What is the vertical venting from the center of the spacecraft? Maybe you
could add particles like that shooting out from the explosion.
I can't tell which direction the spacecraft are going, maybe thrusters or
more clearly defined head and tail, or something to hint at thier
direction?

Post a reply to this message

"Lutz-Peter Hooge" <lpv### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3e71f990@news.povray.org...
> Lutz-Peter Hooge <lpv### [at] gmxde> wrote:

> Hm, according to my logs, the large version was viewed over 70
> times, but no comment. Is there something wrong with the image?
> Of course negative criticism is also welcome!

   Yes, I was one of those 70, L-P...  :(

   Nice image, *I* like it, but RD has covered any small faults, imho.

    It just needs a bit of tweaking here and there... Wish I could
help you more...

    ~Steve~


>
> Lutz-Peter

Post a reply to this message

Renderdog <slo### [at] hiwaaynet> wrote:
> Nice image, I like the painted earth, the spacecraft, and the overall
> layout.

Thanks

> The beam seems a little too solid, maybe try media.

It is media, but you're right, it looks a bit too solid.

> The stars are a little dim.

Stars? Where did you see stars? I didn't put them in...

> Maybe a bit more fade at the planet's atmosphere edge.

The athmosphere already has (approximated) exponention (e^-x) falloff,
AFAIK that is realistic. Making it fade more, would mean to make it
overall thicker, too thick IMHO.

> The red rectangles on the spacecraft look a little too saturated, and the
> angled torus shapes seem oddly shaded, lit on both sides.

Those 'red rectangles' should something like windows, I agree that they
need work.
I just didn't have a better idea for texturing them when I made the
spacecraft and since I originally planned to motion-blur the one in the
front, details wouldn't have been so visible anyway. 

> What is the vertical venting from the center of the spacecraft? Maybe you
> could add particles like that shooting out from the explosion.

They are supposed to be some kind of antenna-arrays or something. It just
felt like there should be some thingy in the middle.

> I can't tell which direction the spacecraft are going, maybe thrusters or
> more clearly defined head and tail, or something to hint at thier
> direction?

They're supposed to fly towards the camera but IMHO direction isn't
really important.

Thanks for your comment!

Lutz-Peter

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:49:12 +0100, Lutz-Peter Hooge wrote:

> Lutz-Peter Hooge <lpv### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> 
>> fullsize and less compressed version here (180k):
>> <http://www.hoogi.de/lutz-peter/extern/orbital.html>
> 
> Hm, according to my logs, the large version was viewed over 70 
> times, but no comment. Is there something wrong with the image? 
> Of course negative criticism is also welcome!
> 
> Lutz-Peter

The one thing I can't tell is whether there's some laser positioned on the 
planet shooting up or a third ship shooting from behind. I guess doing 
procedural clouds for an entire planet must be hard. The rest of my 
complaints would just be render quality settings which are easily fixed 
(given time :-) )

-- 
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

3e727d41$1@news.povray.org...
> Renderdog <slo### [at] hiwaaynet> wrote:
>
> > The beam seems a little too solid, maybe try media.
>
> It is media, but you're right, it looks a bit too solid.
>
Media seem meeting the surface of the container, If you put a cylindrical
density, you could try fading it more toward the edge.
BTW speaking of realism, it is an esthetic choice because in vacuum, no
laser beam can be saw (no particle or gaz molecules to be illuminated :)

I like your clouds: they give an alien feeling to this planet so familiar by
other features.

Marc

Post a reply to this message