 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignorancia org> wrote:
>
>> I discarded that one without testing it first, because in my mind
>> it sounded way too slow to render.
>
> Can you do the difference, convert it to a mesh, and THEN render it?
I would kill for a simple way to do that... converting isosurfaces to
meshes.
> Maybe use a heightfield?
I thought about making it with several hf's rotated around, but it
would still lack the "overhangs" that isosurfaces allow.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/29/2016 6:09 PM, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> El 29/02/16 a las 14:54, Stephen escribió:
>> On 2/29/2016 12:40 PM, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>>> Well, after looking at images from these amazing caves, I hope
>>> you're joking... it would be terrifically difficult to go for
>>> something even remotely resembling that.
>>
>>
>> They do use coloured lights around the rocks and in the water, you
>> know. :-)
>>
>
> Yes, I know... I was referring to the intricate shapes of the
> stalagmites and stalactites.
>
They look pretty good to me.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> > Can you do the difference, convert it to a mesh, and THEN render it?
>
> I would kill for a simple way to do that... converting isosurfaces to
> meshes.
Are you aware of Kevin Loney's isosurface approximation?
http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/isotut/approx.htm
The site links to the long dead Geocities for the source, but there appears to
be a new site, which I haven't investigated:
http://www.winsite.com/Multimedia/3D-Modeling-CAD/Isosurface/
A version updated by Jaap Frank and Tor Olav Kristensen is available at p.b.s-f:
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.scene-files/thread/%3C47cc76fd%40news.povray.org%3E/
I have had mixed results with it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> I thought about making it with several hf's rotated around, but it
> would still lack the "overhangs" that isosurfaces allow.
Why not use reasonable fast isosurfaces?
Sometimes Samuel T. Benge's Isorender approach gives good results
(http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.scene-files/thread/%3Cweb.525dcd797919e005c8060b460@news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=40
4955&toff=50).
Here are two examples with my "universal test scene".
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'iso-tests.jpg' (526 KB)
Preview of image 'iso-tests.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
>>> Can you do the difference, convert it to a mesh, and THEN render
>>> it?
>>
>> I would kill for a simple way to do that... converting isosurfaces
>> to meshes.
>
> Are you aware of Kevin Loney's isosurface approximation?
No, and it's strange, because something like this should have sparked
my interest and I would have tested it.
> I have had mixed results with it.
>
Well, lets see how it works with pigment-based isosurfaces... I hope
it works, because if not, a lot of features are going to be missing on
my cave.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
>
>> I thought about making it with several hf's rotated around, but it
>> would still lack the "overhangs" that isosurfaces allow.
>
>
>
> Why not use reasonable fast isosurfaces? Sometimes Samuel T. Benge's
> Isorender approach gives good results
This one I remember now... but somehow I never played with it and got
lost on my memory. I might have some uses for it on the cave, no doubt.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Another cave test... with more stalactites, a better lighting and fast
radiosity. It renders a bit faster than before, because I found some
silly things I was doing with the stalactites/stalagmites isosurfaces,
and also reduced max_gradient to 3.
I tested the approx include, but found they are not very practical for
my usage of isosurfaces here (I'm using a different isosurface for each
stalactite/stalagmite, and there are a lot). I will stick to isosurfaces
for the moment...
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'the-cave-06-3h45m.jpg' (258 KB)
Preview of image 'the-cave-06-3h45m.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Aaah! You are getting somewhere. I love this cave.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote on 02/03/2016 12.00:
> Another cave test... with more stalactites, a better lighting and fast
> radiosity. It renders a bit faster than before, because I found some
> silly things I was doing with the stalactites/stalagmites isosurfaces,
> and also reduced max_gradient to 3.
>
> I tested the approx include, but found they are not very practical for
> my usage of isosurfaces here (I'm using a different isosurface for each
> stalactite/stalagmite, and there are a lot). I will stick to isosurfaces
> for the moment...
>
> --
> jaime
It begins to become an interesting place... and the light is very good!
;-)
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A vast improvement, and I'm glad you found a few places to speed up the render.
It will be interesting to see your textures, contrasts and myriad thoughtful
enhancements as this progresses.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
