El 01/04/16 a las 22:45, Sven Littkowski escribió:
> This is the most realistic ocean I have seen so far! Will you
> publish the scene source code?

   Thanks... of course, sources will be published once I finish fiddling
with it.

> Just the sky is pink and some dust does not allow to see very far, so
> it seems.

   Well, the sky is from CIE_Skylight.inc, and yes, I've never been very
satisfied with the pinkish coloring at horizon. On the first image is
less noticeable as I lowered the white point to 4000K.

   The dust/haze is on purpose, to hide the fact that the sea is a mesh
with a finite resolution.

--
jaime

Post a reply to this message

> Very good! :)

   Thanks!

> Now show the coast.

   If I do, don't expect to see any breaking wave there... As Thomas
said, it must be feasible, but just acquiring the knowledge to do this
procedurally will consume the rest of my lifetime.

> From the camera.

   I don't know any other way to trace a scene except from the camera. ;)

> Such foreshortening

   ??? ..I guess the translator got confused here.


--
jaime

Post a reply to this message

> That is something I have unsuccessfully tried to do with
> isosurfaces. Should be possible but...
>

  Yes, it should be possible, but the complexity behind the phenomenon is
mind-blowing.

--
jaime

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:

> > Very good! :)
>
>    Thanks!
>
> > Now show the coast.
>
>    If I do, don't expect to see any breaking wave there... As Thomas
> said, it must be feasible, but just acquiring the knowledge to do this
> procedurally will consume the rest of my lifetime.
>


I speak about simulation in graphics editors.
You speak about programming and mathematician.



> > From the camera.
>
>    I don't know any other way to trace a scene except from the camera. ;)
>
> > Such foreshortening
>
>    ??? ..I guess the translator got confused here.
>
>
> --
> jaime

Sorry!
The camera is located ashore.
I wanted to see this coast.
That it was clear, I attached the picture, but you already don't understand.
My picture: where camera?
The look captures the coast on which there is a camera.
But, the essence is clear already. You way: Programming and mathematician.

NOT RMB, LMB, Middle and scroll, only keyboard.  :):):)

I said earlier that Povray can't bend a surface, using normal as it does the
Blender.
You well repeated that ocean which I showed. But, it is very difficult method
for users the Blender. :)))))

Post a reply to this message

> I speak about simulation in graphics editors.

   Then that has nothing to do with POV-Ray... from that point of view,
it doesn't matter what POV-Ray can do, you just export the final mesh
and render it with a suitable material/media.

> The camera is located ashore. I wanted to see this coast. That it was
> clear, I attached the picture, but you already don't understand.

   I did understand, but wondered what you wrote in russian that got
translated as "foreshortening".

> You well repeated that ocean which I showed. But, it is very
> difficult method for users the Blender. :)))))

   As I said above, your exporter users should be making the ocean
surface by blender means (i.e.:
https://www.blender.org/manual/modeling/modifiers/simulate/ocean.html).
In my opinion, your job should only consist on providing good materials
on the POV-Ray export.

   Anyhow, if you wanted to let your users to use POV-Ray as a modeler in
this case, you could always use the HF_Square() macro to export the
height_field function as a mesh, but I wonder how would you allow them
preview that in Blender.

--
jaime

Post a reply to this message

On 4/2/2016 3:17 AM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> On 2016/04/01 07:36 PM, Stephen wrote:

>>
>>
>>>> That I believe. I spent weeks trying to get a good result using Tek's
>>>> isosurface, not very well. :(
>>>>
>>>> http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/portfolio/Stephen/366/index.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>    Nice idea, but yes, the foam got a bit messy... ;)
>>>
>>
>> And that was the best of the pick. :-(
>>
>>
> I think this actually looks really good. I like the style.

Thank you. You are one of the few. :-)

> But not for
> realism though.
>

I am not known for my realism. ;-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:

> > I speak about simulation in graphics editors.
>
>    Then that has nothing to do with POV-Ray... from that point of view,
> it doesn't matter what POV-Ray can do, you just export the final mesh
> and render it with a suitable material/media.
>

Some render have the option "displace"
Look:
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/message/%3Cweb.56ff96e9c8daa117a3e03fe0%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3Cweb.56ff
96e9c8daa117a3e03fe0%40news.povray.org%3E

> > The camera is located ashore. I wanted to see this coast. That it was
> > clear, I attached the picture, but you already don't understand.
>
>    I did understand, but wondered what you wrote in russian that got
> translated as "foreshortening".
>

The online translator puts equality sign "foreshortening" = "perspective"
:)))))


> > You well repeated that ocean which I showed. But, it is very
> > difficult method for users the Blender. :)))))
>
>    As I said above, your exporter users should be making the ocean
> surface by blender means (i.e.:
> https://www.blender.org/manual/modeling/modifiers/simulate/ocean.html).
> In my opinion, your job should only consist on providing good materials
> on the POV-Ray export.
>


Yes.


>    Anyhow, if you wanted to let your users to use POV-Ray as a modeler in
> this case, you could always use the HF_Square() macro to export the
> height_field function as a mesh, but I wonder how would you allow them
> preview that in Blender.
>

If macro creates the file (with mesh2), then I can load it in a scene.

> --
> jaime

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 4/2/2016 3:17 AM, Nekar Xenos wrote:

> > But not for
> > realism though.
> >
>
> I am not known for my realism. ;-)
>
> --
>
> Regards
>      Stephen

I am not interested in realism. But, I want that the viewer understood that I
drew.
:))))

Post a reply to this message

On 4/2/2016 12:01 PM, LanuHum wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> On 4/2/2016 3:17 AM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>
>>> But not for
>>> realism though.
>>>
>>
>> I am not known for my realism. ;-)
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards
>>       Stephen
>
> I am not interested in realism. But, I want that the viewer understood that I
> drew.
> :))))
>

That is the best that I can hope for.
I know my place. ;)

(A tribute to the late Ronnie Corbett.)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 4/2/2016 12:01 PM, LanuHum wrote:
> > Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> >> On 4/2/2016 3:17 AM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> >
> >>> But not for
> >>> realism though.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I am not known for my realism. ;-)
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>       Stephen
> >
> > I am not interested in realism. But, I want that the viewer understood that I
> > drew.
> > :))))
> >
>
> That is the best that I can hope for.
> I know my place. ;)
>
> (A tribute to the late Ronnie Corbett.)
>
> --
>
> Regards
>      Stephen


Long ago in shop I photographed a pattern? (pictures,images?) reproduction.
I don't see it realistic, but, I would like to simulate it for animation.
For me it is very beautiful!

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'sea_pic.jpg' (176 KB)

Preview of image 'sea_pic.jpg'