Those fields *rule*, man. Very nice.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Hi all:
> 
> I've started my own "Landscape of the week" project, following the idea 
>   and general concepts of the LOTW project by Christoph Hormann. I'm 
> really amazed of what he achieved with isosurfaces, so I tried too...
> 
<snip />

Although Christoph's stuff is certainly good, you have raised the bar 
with yours: stunning work! Your attention to detail is amazing!!!
-- 
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:

Jaime, you are the king.
-- 
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:

> Mick Hazelgrove wrote:
> 
>> How did you get the foam along the waters edge?
> 
> 
>   Casually, I'm just tweaking this texture. Now I simlified it a bit, 
> removing the intersection. The same terrain itself translated a bit is 
> enough. There is the relevant part:

<snip />

I
AM
NOT
WORTHY!!!!
-- 
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>

Post a reply to this message

Were I doing this one, I'd make a really loooooong scene, render it from 
successive points, and put it together in a panning movie that goes 
around and around. :-)

Very very cool.

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:

I was wowed by this image this morning, but wanted to wait until I got home
(full color monitor) before posting. This is incredible. The little plateau
with the houses definitely raises the bar.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> stephen parkinson wrote:
> 
>> first thought, where is it? second - photo, third - has the Loch Ness 
>> monster moved residence :-)
> 
> 
>   You mean the foam in the middle of the lake? This is a side effect of 
> the foam technique... nothing misterious, I hope: I've enough with the 
> artifacts! :)
> 
>> some silly questions
>> what is the range of x,y,z in the pic for the iso-surfaces?
> 
> 
>   The container is box{<-200,0,-200>,<200,8,200>}, although the peaks 
> rarely reach the "ceil". I tried to keep the scene scale somewhat like 
> 1=1km.
> 
>> do you do the iso as <-1,-1,-1> to <1,1,1> and scale ?
> 
> 
>   No, I never scale isosurfaces! I've the superstitious believe that 
> scaling them increases render times...
> 
>> how do you do the houses, csg - yes- but what size typically as a 
>> standalone object for devel, and then scale by some factor, to fit in, 
>> process of emphirical adjustment until it looks right?
> 
> 
>   They are just a bunch of boxes. I scale them randomly to have sizes 
> between 5 and 15 metters of side (in the scene scale).
> 
>> please post source or some tantalising snippets to aid understanding ?
> 
> 
>   Wait, I'm still cleaning and commenting it. And the web page for the 
> LOTW project must be done too...
> 
> -- 
> Jaime
> 
interesting

one minor critism, the houses all have shiny white walls facing the 
camera, darken it to a sort of mushroom off-white might fit in the scene??
also no windows, just some darker squares would suffice at longer range ?

stephen

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Neat, but must take quite long to parse...

  Not that long really, only 3 minutes. Appart from near the crackle 
borders, I also permit the trees to fill sometimes an entire cell, so 
this accelerates the rendering and causes the effect of little forests 
here and there. I'm just thinking that the same technique can be used 
with the houses to create little towns... hmmm... interesting.

> Of course no serious farmer would create such perfect crackle fields.  I 
> assume developing an algorithm to automatically generate realistic 
> divisions would be quite tricky though.

   :) You know, I expent many time looking at aerial photos of fields to 
try to capture the order/chaos there, but the only idea that poped up 
was the use of crackle.

   Indeed, I forgot to tell you something I discovered about Skylight 
when making this scene (as you are one of the few known users of this 
include):

   I finally found why SunColor seemed always too blue, and it was that 
ovbious that I feel a bit idiot: Skylight isn't a sunlight model, but a 
*sky light* model. Looking for first time at the original abstract 
papers that Philippe Debar implemented, I notice that he only 
implemented the one for the sky light simulation, so the SunColor 
returned it's not the color of the sun, but the color of the sky at the 
sun position. I'm using now instead the Blackbody() macro from CIE.inc 
for the sunlight color, with variable temperature depending on the 
altitude: Blackbody(2000+4500*Al). Of course, I still use the sky dome, 
  and the SunColor for the fill lights.

   Regards,

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> 
>   :) You know, I expent many time looking at aerial photos of fields to 
> try to capture the order/chaos there, but the only idea that poped up 
> was the use of crackle.

That strongly depends on the region and the relief form.  Here in 
northern Germany for example you will find a lot of (nearly) rectangular 
fields.  In more hilly/mountain regions with more extensive farming a 
more crackle-like division might be more common.

You could try http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~jsnow/graphics/pov.html although 
this seems to generate a lot of very small areas as well which is not 
realistic.

>   Indeed, I forgot to tell you something I discovered about Skylight 
> when making this scene (as you are one of the few known users of this 
> include):
> 
>   I finally found why SunColor seemed always too blue, and it was that 
> ovbious that I feel a bit idiot: Skylight isn't a sunlight model, but a 
> *sky light* model. [...]

Well, now that you say it... ;-)

In fact i stopped using the 'correct' color for the light source soon 
after i started using the skylight system.  I just need the additional 
degree of freedom to design scenes.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 21 Mar. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

de news: 409177ef@news.povray.org...
>
>    You mean the foam in the middle of the lake? This is a side effect of
> the foam technique... nothing misterious, I hope: I've enough with the
> artifacts! :)
>
It must be an effect of a shallow, a rise of the terrain underneath.
You could try less turbulence warp in the vertical direction maybe

Marc

Post a reply to this message