 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16-05-01 02:52, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> On 30-4-2016 18:26, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>> That's strange... I'm getting good results with just 16 samples.
>>
>
> This is basically what I do; most other details are Gilles' original
> settings (more or less):
>
> #declare P_cloud2_1 =
> pigment {density_file df3 "cloud2_1.df3"
> lambda 3
> omega 0.6
> interpolate 1
> translate -0.5
> scale <1, -1, 1>
> }
>
> #declare Cloud1 =
> box {-0.5,0.5
> texture {pigment {Clear} finish {ambient 0 diffuse 0}}
> hollow
> interior {
> media {
> scattering {1, C_Sun*0.006 extinction 0.25}
> intervals 1
> samples 100, 1000
> density {
> gradient y
> density_map {
> [0 pigment_pattern {P_cloud2_1}
> turbulence Turbulence*0.1
> ]
> [1 pigment_pattern {P_cloud2_1}
> turbulence Turbulence*2
> ]
> }
> }
> }
> }
> scale <4/3,1,1>
> }
>
>
samples 100, 1000 is specific to method 1 and 2. As it is now, the 1000
is ignored.
Also, it's preferable to not set intervals at all and just use the
default of 1.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-5-2016 19:00, Alain wrote:
> samples 100, 1000 is specific to method 1 and 2. As it is now, the 1000
> is ignored.
> Also, it's preferable to not set intervals at all and just use the
> default of 1.
>
>
Yes, thanks. I know this and - as it happens - just overlooked the
second samples value.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote on 28/04/2016 14.44:
>> Hope one or more things here enough to get this cloud method working
>> generally.
>
> Thanks for the detailed explanation, but in this case the best
> solution was the one the other Bill P. suggested. A merge of spheres
> with same radius and placement did work pretty well, and in this case it
> doesn't matter as it is an invisible container. It still does the job of
> being a close container, and the speed up provided is even a little
> better too.
>
> --
> jaime
>
:-o
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Latest development:
+ new and improved cumulus shapes using trace() over a rough base shape.
There are 10 different clouds using 500 blob components each one.
+ added cirrus layer using a panoramic photograph of real clouds as
pattern for the media density (had to "cheat" because I could not find
any convincing pattern).
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ocean-22.jpg' (149 KB)
Preview of image 'ocean-22.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-5-2016 12:38, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Latest development:
>
> + new and improved cumulus shapes using trace() over a rough base shape.
> There are 10 different clouds using 500 blob components each one.
>
> + added cirrus layer using a panoramic photograph of real clouds as
> pattern for the media density (had to "cheat" because I could not find
> any convincing pattern).
>
Looking very good indeed... I am not entirely convinced by the cirrus
layer though.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/05/16 11:38, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Latest development:
>
> + new and improved cumulus shapes using trace() over a rough base shape.
> There are 10 different clouds using 500 blob components each one.
>
> + added cirrus layer using a panoramic photograph of real clouds as
> pattern for the media density (had to "cheat" because I could not find
> any convincing pattern).
>
> --
> jaime
Very convincing cumulus; however, I'm less sure about the cirrus. I
think that a clockwise rotation might fix that.
Having said that, excellent work
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks, Thomas, John... see if these cirrus look better.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ocean-22c.jpg' (142 KB)
Preview of image 'ocean-22c.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-5-2016 7:53, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Thanks, Thomas, John... see if these cirrus look better.
>
The wizard did it again! :-)
Yes, that is much, much better.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/05/16 06:53, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Thanks, Thomas, John... see if these cirrus look better.
>
> --
> jaime
You're not supposed to use a camera ;-)
Much better. Good work.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.05.2016 um 07:53 schrieb Jaime Vives Piqueres:
> Thanks, Thomas, John... see if these cirrus look better.
Something's still odd about this. Can't put my finger on it though.
Maybe thick low-hanging cumulus together with cirrus is a weather
situation we don't normally see?
Maybe there's a 3D-component to your cirrus clouds, whereas in reality
they seem to be quite flat?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
