 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6-1-2015 17:57, Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann wrote:
> Hi(gh)!
>
> On 06.01.2015 16:55, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> My pilot is reckless!
>>
>> On our way to the rim of the B-ring, he plunged into the ring itself!
>
> With an unmanned probe carefully braking to adjust its speed to the
> particles (which are in fact just tiny "moonlets" following Kepler's
> orbital laws), such a photo should be feasible - small particles
> diverted by collisions should not move faster than a few meters per
> second relative to the probe and thus pose no risk, bigger ones could be
> dodged automatically.
>
> And then perhaps even do a sample return! Has anyone at NASA ever
> proposed such a mission?
I would not be surprised if they had some blueprints in a closet.
I must say that in my image there (still) is some artistic freedom in
the fact that the ring particles are (much) larger than in reality.
>
>>
>> Media to simulate the sub-millimetre particles; reddish zone to indicate
>> where the "mountains" are going to be. Distance to there is about 500 km.
>>
>
> And for the occasional star peeking though the media: feel free to use
> my customizable sky_sphere!
When I come to that, I will use it. Thanks!
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6-1-2015 17:21, Stephen wrote:
> On 06/01/2015 15:55, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> My pilot is reckless!
>>
>> On our way to the rim of the B-ring, he plunged into the ring itself!
>>
>
> Give him a copy of Elite Dangerous. :-)
I just learned he failed about every test at the Space Academy of Mercury...
>
>> Media to simulate the sub-millimetre particles; reddish zone to indicate
>> where the "mountains" are going to be. Distance to there is about 500 km.
>>
>
> This could be a screenshot albeit of a different quality.
Yes. I keep that in mind for later. Isosurface and media need a much
higher quality indeed but this is faster ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6-1-2015 18:59, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> Regarding the isosurface function I still haven't fully figured
> out how to apply a fine pattern to a coarse pattern (such as granite
> structure on the crackle particles) without also generating "granite
> fuzz particles". This is related to why you didn't get ring structure
> on the fuzz. There is probably some smart way using min / max / select
> but the things I tried didn't work as expected.
>
Still looking for improvements. This is the closest I could get
presently on a small scale (see image). On a large ring scale, it does
not look good/convincing at all.
Using the following code:
#declare f_particles =
function(x,y,z) {
0.5 - f_crackle(40*x, 40*y, 40*z)
+ f_granite(x*0.1, y*0.1, z*0.1)
- f_onion(x*10, 0, z*10)
}
isosurface {
function { f_particles(x,y,z) }
contained_by {
box {<-0.50, -0.5, -0.5>, <0.5, 0.2, 0.5>}
}
accuracy 0.0001
max_gradient 1000
texture {
pigment {srgb <0.98, 0.98, 0.98>}
}
translate 0.25*y
}
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'isosurface_functions_test.png' (179 KB)
Preview of image 'isosurface_functions_test.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
But this has better potential (see image) using as function:
function(x,y,z) {
0.8
- f_crackle(400*x, 400*y, 400*z)
+ f_bozo(x*100, y*100, z*100)
- f_waves(x*100, y*10, z*100)
}
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'complex.png' (1092 KB)
Preview of image 'complex.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11.01.2015 13:35, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> But this has better potential (see image) using as function:
nice. you can also add some turbulence by adding a noise term
to the input parameters of the functions, e.g.
f_waves(x*100 + f_bozo(x*100,0,0),
y*10 + f_bozo(0,y*10,0),
z*100 + f_bozo(0,0,z*100))
(offline sample, scaling likely way off)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> Still looking for improvements. This is the closest I could get
> presently on a small scale (see image). On a large ring scale, it does
> not look good/convincing at all.
>
> Using the following code:
>
> #declare f_particles =
> function(x,y,z) {
> 0.5 - f_crackle(40*x, 40*y, 40*z)
> + f_granite(x*0.1, y*0.1, z*0.1)
> - f_onion(x*10, 0, z*10)
> }
>
> isosurface {
> function { f_particles(x,y,z) }
> contained_by {
> box {<-0.50, -0.5, -0.5>, <0.5, 0.2, 0.5>}
> }
>
> accuracy 0.0001
> max_gradient 1000
> texture {
> pigment {srgb <0.98, 0.98, 0.98>}
> }
> translate 0.25*y
> }
>
>
> --
> Thomas
I like this. the method which combines two functions looks useful.
It seems there are a lot of techniques on building functions.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12-1-2015 7:24, And wrote:
> I like this. the method which combines two functions looks useful.
>
> It seems there are a lot of techniques on building functions.
>
>
You should look up my Geomorph macros! ;-) The functions are so complex
that the the whole thing is hardly usable.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-1-2015 16:56, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> On 11.01.2015 13:35, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> But this has better potential (see image) using as function:
>
> nice. you can also add some turbulence by adding a noise term
> to the input parameters of the functions, e.g.
>
> f_waves(x*100 + f_bozo(x*100,0,0),
> y*10 + f_bozo(0,y*10,0),
> z*100 + f_bozo(0,0,z*100))
>
> (offline sample, scaling likely way off)
>
>
Ah yes, thanks indeed! I wanted to add turbulence by adding another
function but that did not work correctly. This is more logical.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote on 11/01/2015 13.35:
> But this has better potential (see image) using as function:
>
> function(x,y,z) {
> 0.8
> - f_crackle(400*x, 400*y, 400*z)
> + f_bozo(x*100, y*100, z*100)
> - f_waves(x*100, y*10, z*100)
> }
>
> Thomas
Nice. with a different texture could be used for a plower field too.
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12-1-2015 11:39, Paolo Gibellini wrote:
> Nice. with a different texture could be used for a plower field too.
> Paolo
Yes indeed. Something to keep in mind :-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
