 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
An old 'Rochelle' lathe. Probably from the late 50's, early 60's. I
built this yesterday, and don't really like the steel texture. I'm
using:
texture{Silver_Metal scale 0
normal{bumps .1 scale 0.00000001}
finish{reflection .13 ambient .12}}
How can I improve this and make it dirty-looking?
TIA
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'lathe3.jpg' (76 KB)
Preview of image 'lathe3.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> An old 'Rochelle' lathe. Probably from the late 50's, early 60's. I
> built this yesterday,
Hey Steve, it looks pretty good!
I see a few signs indicating it wasn't built with CSG. Might want to
make those hex nuts a little less 'telling' by removing the smoothing.
It's a matter of taste, though.
> and don't really like the steel texture. I'm
> using:
>
> texture{Silver_Metal scale 0
> normal{bumps .1 scale 0.00000001}
> finish{reflection .13 ambient .12}}
>
> How can I improve this and make it dirty-looking?
My first thought is to use some sort of proximity pattern to distribute
the metal's reflection unevenly. All proximity patterns are costly in
terms of time needed to render them though.
Next idea would be to use a turbulent bumps pattern to make some parts
less reflective. Combine that with a slope pattern to add a little dust.
Together, they should make that metal look quite old, possible a little
abused.
> TIA
>
> ~Steve~
TIA? Thanks in advance?
-Samuel Benge
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Samuel Benge" <stb### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
news:407### [at] hotmailcom...
> St. wrote:
>
> > An old 'Rochelle' lathe. Probably from the late 50's, early 60's.
I
> > built this yesterday,
>
>
> Hey Steve, it looks pretty good!
Thanks Sam! It's just a guess that it's from the late 50's/early
60's, but I would say close to that. I have the real thing in my
workshop, and would be happy to post the image if you/anyone would
like. :)
>
> I see a few signs indicating it wasn't built with CSG. Might want to
> make those hex nuts a little less 'telling' by removing the
smoothing.
> It's a matter of taste, though.
Yes, it was built entirely using Wings, which I'm getting more used
to... I'll re-work the nuts and try your suggestion, thanks.
>
> > and don't really like the steel texture. I'm
> > using:
> >
> > texture{Silver_Metal scale 0
> > normal{bumps .1 scale 0.00000001}
> > finish{reflection .13 ambient .12}}
> >
> > How can I improve this and make it dirty-looking?
>
>
> My first thought is to use some sort of proximity pattern to
distribute
> the metal's reflection unevenly. All proximity patterns are costly
in
> terms of time needed to render them though.
>
> Next idea would be to use a turbulent bumps pattern to make some
parts
> less reflective. Combine that with a slope pattern to add a little
dust.
> Together, they should make that metal look quite old, possible a
little
> abused.
Could you post some small code to illustrate this? I would then
have a clear idea of what to do.
>
>
> > TIA
> >
> > ~Steve~
>
> TIA? Thanks in advance?
Yes Sam, thank you. :)
~Steve~
>
> -Samuel Benge
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I built this yesterday, and don't really like the steel texture. I'm
> using:
>
> texture{Silver_Metal scale 0
> normal{bumps .1 scale 0.00000001}
> finish{reflection .13 ambient .12}}
>
> How can I improve this and make it dirty-looking?
Oooo... too much ambient. :-S I thought it looked (who did they say in
The Matrix?) "a little weird".
As for looking more dirty... I can only suggest adding pigment texturing
to try to make it look like it has concentrations of dust, etc. in the
hard-to-clean resesses. (Probably a nightmare to texture!) And make it
less reflective, turn down the specular hilight, etc. Sorry - not much
help I know!
Certainly an interesting model though!
Thanks.
Andrew @ home.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Andrew C on Mozilla" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:407997be@news.povray.org...
> > I built this yesterday, and don't really like the steel texture.
I'm
> > using:
> >
> > texture{Silver_Metal scale 0
> > normal{bumps .1 scale 0.00000001}
> > finish{reflection .13 ambient .12}}
> >
> > How can I improve this and make it dirty-looking?
>
> Oooo... too much ambient. :-S I thought it looked (who did they say
in
> The Matrix?) "a little weird".
lol! Yeah, I can understand that, but too much ambient? Usually, I
try to keep it down, but this time, I raised it thinking it might show
a truer/better image - I guess it didn't work though...
I also tried a Rad scene (my first Rad scene), with this, but it
looked worse than it does now. Any ideas on what settings I should use
for a model like this? Would Radiosity be beneficial for this type of
model?
>
> As for looking more dirty... I can only suggest adding pigment
texturing
> to try to make it look like it has concentrations of dust, etc. in
the
> hard-to-clean resesses. (Probably a nightmare to texture!) And make
it
> less reflective, turn down the specular hilight, etc. Sorry - not
much
> help I know!
No, your suggestions are helpful indeed! It's always worth trying
another Povers' ideas... :)
>
> Certainly an interesting model though!
Thanks, a little sweat 'was' also generated for this model, I can
assure you... ;)
~Steve~
>
> Thanks.
> Andrew @ home.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>Oooo... too much ambient. :-S I thought it looked (who did they say
>>in The Matrix?) "a little weird".
>
> lol! Yeah, I can understand that, but too much ambient? Usually, I
> try to keep it down, but this time, I raised it thinking it might show
> a truer/better image - I guess it didn't work though...
>
> I also tried a Rad scene (my first Rad scene), with this, but it
> looked worse than it does now. Any ideas on what settings I should use
> for a model like this? Would Radiosity be beneficial for this type of
> model?
*checks original post* Hmm... radiosity probably won't do much to this.
The main things radiosity does is make shaddows blurry (so do area
lights - but faster) and, depending on the scene, lighten up otherwise
dark corners (allowing you to reduce the ambient level but still be able
to see). You scene doesn't really have many "corners" to lighten up.
Oh, and if you have brightly coloured objects near white surfaces, you
get colour bleed - but your scene doesn't have anything like that anyway.
>>As for looking more dirty... I can only suggest adding pigment
>>texturing to try to make it look like it has concentrations of dust,
>>etc. in the hard-to-clean resesses. (Probably a nightmare to texture!)
>>And make it less reflective, turn down the specular hilight, etc.
>>Sorry - not much help I know!
>
> No, your suggestions are helpful indeed! It's always worth trying
> another Povers' ideas... :)
Well - unless said suggestions are stark raving mad! (It seems to happen
from time to time...)
>>Certainly an interesting model though!
>
> Thanks, a little sweat 'was' also generated for this model, I can
> assure you... ;)
I'll bet...
Andrew @ home.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> An old 'Rochelle' lathe. Probably from the late 50's, early 60's. I
> built this yesterday, and don't really like the steel texture. I'm
> using:
>
> texture{Silver_Metal scale 0
> normal{bumps .1 scale 0.00000001}
> finish{reflection .13 ambient .12}}
>
> How can I improve this and make it dirty-looking?
Cool! Just needs another light or two to brighten it up. RL rarely has
just one light :-)
--
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> An old 'Rochelle' lathe. Probably from the late 50's, early 60's. I
> built this yesterday, and don't really like the steel texture. I'm
> using:
>
> texture{Silver_Metal scale 0
> normal{bumps .1 scale 0.00000001}
> finish{reflection .13 ambient .12}}
>
> How can I improve this and make it dirty-looking?
Reflective objects need an environment to reflect, whereas your lathe
and the tiles it's sitting on appear to be floating in empty space. You
might consider putting everything in a shop environment, or even an
empty room (although the reflections from an empty room will be really
bland.. still better than nothing though).
Using low-quality radiosity will then give the room a more realistic
appearance, which will improve the reflections, as well as brightening
up the inky black shadows on your lathe (eliminating any need for
ambient finishes.. remove 'em!), and shouldn't make render times
unacceptably long.
If for some reason you can't or won't do this, at least scatter around a
couple more point lights.
I'm sure I could say more about the textures themselves, but I would
prefer not to judge them in their present lighting environment.
Oh yeah, and don't scale anything by 0. That's just dumb. I'm actually
surprised POV-Ray let you get away with it.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> St. wrote:
>
>> An old 'Rochelle' lathe. Probably from the late 50's, early 60's. I
>> built this yesterday, and don't really like the steel texture. I'm
>> using:
>>
>> texture{Silver_Metal scale 0
>> normal{bumps .1 scale 0.00000001}
>> finish{reflection .13 ambient .12}}
>>
>> How can I improve this and make it dirty-looking?
<snip:criticism />
> Oh yeah, and don't scale anything by 0. That's just dumb. I'm actually
> surprised POV-Ray let you get away with it.
POV-Ray will default to 1 when it finds a 0. For example, if you choose
to "scale 2*y", it will warn you about it and say it is using 1 instead.
Surely you didn't mean to offend here so, just to make it clear, anybody
who can make such a magnificent model is anything but dumb.
--
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message news:4079f372@news.povray.org...
> POV-Ray will default to 1 when it finds a 0. For example, if you choose
> to "scale 2*y", it will warn you about it and say it is using 1 instead.
Just to be clear here -
'scale 2*y' is equivalent to saying 'scale <0,2,0>' which POV-Ray will not accept
and will internally change it to 'scale <1,2,1>'.
You cannot scale by zero.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
