 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignorancia org> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/02/2016 09:15 AM, Paolo Gibellini wrote:
>
> It begins to become an interesting place... and the light is very good!
> ;-)
> Paolo
I had those exact thoughts on seeing this latest image! :-)
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, I like it now more than before, too.
Just - the large crystal in the left foreground is somehow lost and not
fitting (all others are). And another observation: all stalactites and
-mites have too much the same triangular shape. When I was in caves, I
observed some which were like irregular columns, not so triangular. And
they had very wet, smooth surfaces, glossy because of the wetness, and
also levels of different colors because at different times different
minerals were in the water that run down on them.
Maybe, instead of the crystal, a little water pit..?
I try to imagine, the illumination at the background is caused by some
cave entrance on its right side and catches the late afternoon sun
(golden). Seeing light rays coming from the right side in the dusty cave
air would improve that imagination. I like the idea, to be in the darker
area and see the illuminated area in the distance, just the way you are
doing it now. :-)
Hmmm, what about a few fluorescent tiny insects or worms, seen just as
dim greenish-yellow light dots in the darker areas? :-D
Or somewhere a part of a hidden treasure chest (not leveled but a bit
diagonal in its positioning), open and full of gold coins of which some
came out and lay on the ground around it?
On 02.03.2016 06:00, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Another cave test... with more stalactites, a better lighting and fast
> radiosity.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 02/03/16 a las 13:32, Thomas de Groot escribió:
> Aaah! You are getting somewhere.
Yes... underground.
> I love this cave.
Thanks!
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 02/03/16 a las 16:00, William F Pokorny escribió:
> On 03/02/2016 09:15 AM, Paolo Gibellini wrote:
>>
>> It begins to become an interesting place... and the light is very
>> good! ;-) Paolo
>
> I had those exact thoughts on seeing this latest image! :-)
>
> Bill P.
>
Thanks to both! The lighting is supposed to be: daylight from the
rear-right, and a torch or lantern and the interior.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
