On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 09:34:34 +0100, john wrote:

> The problem with this is that you will never convince someone who
> belives in mythology.  You might just as well have tried to convince an
> acient Greek, Roman or Viking that they were wrong. They all had
> writings of some sort to "prove" that they were right

That's certainly true enough....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Bryan Valencia <no### [at] waycom> wrote:
> Bryan Valencia wrote:
> > First W.I.P.
> >
> > I wish there was a way to make the atmosphere thin enough to still see
> > the colors of the sky sphere.
> and now the attachment.

I think it is largely a question of angle of incidence (depending on your
scattering type) and clipping so that the media doesn't extend too far.  It can
be done, but does require tweaking.  If you post your source, I may be able to
help.



Test/example image attached, rendered it and saved radiosity without media, then
loaded saved radiosity file for the final trace.  Machine is a P4 3.00GHz single
core.  Media was constrained to the top half of a sphere 100 units in radius.

Render statistics:
  Total Time:    0 hours  3 minutes 20 seconds (200 seconds)
CPU time used: kernel 0.50 seconds, user 196.98 seconds, total 197.48 seconds
Render averaged 2430.57 PPS over 480000 pixels


Media block used:
//-------------- start code
media
{
    intervals 1
    samples 100
    confidence 1 - 1/255
    variance 1/255
    ratio 0.9 // adjust for scattering media
    scattering
    {
     1, color rgb <1,.9,.75> / 200
     extinction 0.5     // for balancing amount of absorption [1.0]
    }
    method 3               // adaptive sampling
    aa_threshold 0.1     // accuracy threshold for method 3 [0.1]
    aa_level 4           // maximum recursion depth for method 3 [4]
    density{ color rgb <1,1,1> }
}
//-------------- end code

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'news_atmo2.jpg' (108 KB)

Preview of image 'news_atmo2.jpg'

"alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>
> The Agnostic is not living a significant life. Such was only meant to be known
> on a personal level. Whats worse is, if you had a reason to know but forgot.

Pardon me, but who are you to say that someone else is not living a significant
life?  Can make such a profound categorical statement about people's lives
based on a mere difference of opinion?

Are you referring to the agnostic's refusal to aver what he doesn't know, or to
an agnostic's having insufficient reason to believe in God?  If the latter,
then are you aware that Gene Roddenberry was an atheist?  Was *his* life
insignificant?

Post a reply to this message

Bryan Valencia <no### [at] waycom> wrote:
>
> Apologies for being so off-topic, but Matthew 7 is being abused here. You should not
quote Jesus Christ out of contex
t
> like this.  Read the passage in the context of the teaching.  I know non-Christians
like to whip this verse out whene
ver
> they want to do something immoral -

No, non-Christians like to whip this verse out when Christians won't mind their
own business.

> - just to shut the Christians up...

You got that part right.  Read verse 6, same chapter.

Post a reply to this message