I got many good suggestions in my previous post, "gas flame (needs help)",
and after much experimenting, I ended up using something completely
different. I looked closely at the gas flame on my own kitchen stove and
observed that it appears to have no thickness at all. So I made a mesh with
no thickness and then experimented with different textures. the flame in the
attached image has an ambient value of 1.0, which makes it appear to be
emitting light even though the light is completely blocked.
Steve Shelby

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'flamegroup2a.jpg' (23 KB)

Preview of image 'flamegroup2a.jpg'

Nice!  Is this the finished image or is it stil WIP?

Post a reply to this message

Thanks. WIP. I want to try to put some orange in the flame. The other things
in the scene are just props. My goal is to make a detailed scene with a
steaming teakettle.
Steve Shelby

"Felbrigg" <som### [at] microsoftcom> wrote in message
news:40682fc3$1@news.povray.org...
> Nice!  Is this the finished image or is it stil WIP?
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Steve Shelby wrote:

> I got many good suggestions in my previous post, "gas flame (needs help)",
> and after much experimenting, I ended up using something completely
> different. I looked closely at the gas flame on my own kitchen stove and
> observed that it appears to have no thickness at all. So I made a mesh with
> no thickness and then experimented with different textures. the flame in the
> attached image has an ambient value of 1.0, which makes it appear to be
> emitting light even though the light is completely blocked.
> Steve Shelby

Wow, totally gettin' there! If the flames emit light and the middle 
burner has a high specular value, plus make it a rounded disc, it will 
look even more realistic. The flames should not have any absorption in 
them; they are purely emissive. Radiosity will help too.

-- 
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>

Post a reply to this message

Steve Shelby wrote:
> I got many good suggestions in my previous post, "gas flame (needs
> help)", and after much experimenting, I ended up using something
> completely different. I looked closely at the gas flame on my own
> kitchen stove and observed that it appears to have no thickness at
> all. So I made a mesh with no thickness and then experimented with
> different textures. the flame in the attached image has an ambient
> value of 1.0, which makes it appear to be emitting light even though
> the light is completely blocked.
> Steve Shelby

Just having a quick look at my gas hob the flame seems to be made from
almost two separate bits.  The first bit is quite opaque light blue (you
can't see through it like you can in your image), then a second bigger flame
is transparent lighter blue.  I think if you did another set of flame
segments, each starting from the same position as the original ones, but
maybe half the size, more opaque and lighter blue, that might look quite
good.

I guess you could take a photo, it's quite hard to tell just by looking at
the flame!

Post a reply to this message

Thanks for suggesting taking a photo. I took some with my digital camera,
(see attachment)and I can compare directly on my computer screen. I can see
now I still have a way to go.
Steve Shelby

"scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote in message news:4069ee30@news.povray.org...
> Just having a quick look at my gas hob the flame seems to be made from
> almost two separate bits.  The first bit is quite opaque light blue (you
> can't see through it like you can in your image), then a second bigger
flame
> is transparent lighter blue.  I think if you did another set of flame
> segments, each starting from the same position as the original ones, but
> maybe half the size, more opaque and lighter blue, that might look quite
> good.
>
> I guess you could take a photo, it's quite hard to tell just by looking at
> the flame!
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'burner1.jpg' (65 KB)

Preview of image 'burner1.jpg'

Steve Shelby wrote:
> Thanks for suggesting taking a photo. I took some with my digital camera,
> (see attachment)and I can compare directly on my computer screen. I can see
> now I still have a way to go.
> Steve Shelby

Don't forget the "irid" in that pot! :-)

-- 
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>

Post a reply to this message

"Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:406a3481$1@news.povray.org...
> Don't forget the "irid" in that pot! :-)

Yes. The camera "sees" that better than the naked eye does. I didn't even
notice it until I saw the picture. Also, the camara seems to make the bottom
part of the flame more opaque and the upper part more transparent.
Steve

>
> -- 
> Respectfully,
> Dan P
> http://<broken link>

Post a reply to this message