 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> > I was wondering what your "yield" was in terms of successful placement of random
> > points inside. I did a few real quick experiments, and it seemed like I was
> > getting _very_ sparse coverage. I did a (Success/TotalTests)*100 calculation,
> > and got 1.4%.
>
> I don't know about yield. Using VRand_In_Obj() that should be 100%,
> shouldn't it? Anyway, I just increase or decrease the number of objects
> and judge the result.
Yes, I was just testing a vector in the bounding box.
IIRC VRand_In_Object() is part of an iclude file, so it just does pretty much
the same thing - the success/fail process is just hidden.
> My main focus now is to get a "better" (?) coverage of the arms and legs
> compared to the body. They seem to be more sparsely populated. So, my
> idea was to use an additional test: function {pow(f_boxed(x,y,z),2)}
> provided by Christian Froeschlin some years ago, and thus concentrate
> the objects more towards the periphery than towards the centre. However,
> I am not sure what I am doing and I have difficulty scaling this to the
> correct proportions of the body. Any suggestions there would help me.
Right - I noticed the same problem.
I thought about that and naturally what Stephen suggested is the most obvious
solution.
Your function-based approach is something that could work, though I was thinking
of something more cylindrical / spherical / egg-shaped and centered on the body
trunk.
Alternatively, you could use an x-y-z nested loop of smaller testing boxes and
cycle through a random placement in all of those smaller boxes.
It would, of course, be VERY nice if someone in-the-know could hammer out some
sort of octree macro/include file that made some sense to those of us who
haven't had the time to puzzle all of that out yet.
Along those lines, you could build an array to store coordinates, "scan" the
bounding box of the figure with an x-y-z nested loop and inside(object, vector)
tests, and then use the pseudorandom selection process to pick known inside()
points.
The advantage there is that you could save the array to disk, and not have to
test the same figure every single time you wanted to place objects. You
wouldn't even need to load the mesh for the figure either.
So far, my whole weekend has been major SNAFU, so I haven't had mush time to
fiddle with many of the things I've wanted to. :(
Hopefully the rest of the week/weekend won't be FUBAR.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21-11-2017 13:52, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
>>> I was wondering what your "yield" was in terms of successful placement of random
>>> points inside. I did a few real quick experiments, and it seemed like I was
>>> getting _very_ sparse coverage. I did a (Success/TotalTests)*100 calculation,
>>> and got 1.4%.
>>
>> I don't know about yield. Using VRand_In_Obj() that should be 100%,
>> shouldn't it? Anyway, I just increase or decrease the number of objects
>> and judge the result.
>
> Yes, I was just testing a vector in the bounding box.
> IIRC VRand_In_Object() is part of an iclude file, so it just does pretty much
> the same thing - the success/fail process is just hidden.
I seem to remember now that that is the way it works indeed.
>
>> My main focus now is to get a "better" (?) coverage of the arms and legs
>> compared to the body. They seem to be more sparsely populated. So, my
>> idea was to use an additional test: function {pow(f_boxed(x,y,z),2)}
>> provided by Christian Froeschlin some years ago, and thus concentrate
>> the objects more towards the periphery than towards the centre. However,
>> I am not sure what I am doing and I have difficulty scaling this to the
>> correct proportions of the body. Any suggestions there would help me.
>
> Right - I noticed the same problem.
> I thought about that and naturally what Stephen suggested is the most obvious
> solution.
In the end, that is probably what I am going to do. My other experiments
give interesting results but not entirely to my liking, and I prefer to
concentrate on more interesting things ;-)
> Your function-based approach is something that could work, though I was thinking
> of something more cylindrical / spherical / egg-shaped and centered on the body
> trunk.
>
> Alternatively, you could use an x-y-z nested loop of smaller testing boxes and
> cycle through a random placement in all of those smaller boxes.
>
> It would, of course, be VERY nice if someone in-the-know could hammer out some
> sort of octree macro/include file that made some sense to those of us who
> haven't had the time to puzzle all of that out yet.
>
> Along those lines, you could build an array to store coordinates, "scan" the
> bounding box of the figure with an x-y-z nested loop and inside(object, vector)
> tests, and then use the pseudorandom selection process to pick known inside()
> points.
> The advantage there is that you could save the array to disk, and not have to
> test the same figure every single time you wanted to place objects. You
> wouldn't even need to load the mesh for the figure either.
I am not going to dive too deep into this as it rapidly becomes unknown
territory to me, but nonetheless I am grateful for the suggestions.
>
> So far, my whole weekend has been major SNAFU, so I haven't had mush time to
> fiddle with many of the things I've wanted to. :(
>
> Hopefully the rest of the week/weekend won't be FUBAR.
>
Best wishes for that indeed. I have a couple of minor SNAFUs myself at
present which need sorted out (well, ideally, they /should/ sort
themselves out eventually). RL... :-/
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/11/2017 07:51, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 21-11-2017 13:52, Bald Eagle wrote:
>>
>>> My main focus now is to get a "better" (?) coverage of the arms and legs
>>> compared to the body. They seem to be more sparsely populated. So, my
>>> idea was to use an additional test: function {pow(f_boxed(x,y,z),2)}
>>> provided by Christian Froeschlin some years ago, and thus concentrate
>>> the objects more towards the periphery than towards the centre. However,
>>> I am not sure what I am doing and I have difficulty scaling this to the
>>> correct proportions of the body. Any suggestions there would help me.
>>
>> Right - I noticed the same problem.
>> I thought about that and naturally what Stephen suggested is the most
>> obvious
>> solution.
>
Never underestimate the power of the obvious. ;)
> In the end, that is probably what I am going to do. My other experiments
> give interesting results but not entirely to my liking, and I prefer to
> concentrate on more interesting things ;-)
>
:-)
I'm in the same position trying to get some clothes to fit the way I
want. When I really want to get on with it.
>
>
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
So, I abandoned my attempts at being smart and reverted to the basic
filling of the container.
This time it is blobs that steal the show, with some brushed metal
texture. To make it more interesting (reflection wise) I included a hdri
map.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'antony gormley sim.png' (450 KB)
Preview of image 'antony gormley sim.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/11/2017 08:51, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> So, I abandoned my attempts at being smart and reverted to the basic
> filling of the container.
>
> This time it is blobs that steal the show, with some brushed metal
> texture. To make it more interesting (reflection wise) I included a hdri
> map.
>
It reminds me a little bit of the Michelin Man or Bibendum. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 27/11/2017 08:51, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> > So, I abandoned my attempts at being smart and reverted to the basic
> > filling of the container.
> >
> > This time it is blobs that steal the show, with some brushed metal
> > texture. To make it more interesting (reflection wise) I included a hdri
> > map.
> >
>
> It reminds me a little bit of the Michelin Man or Bibendum. :-)
>
> --
>
> Regards
> Stephen
I was about to say - "It's the Stay-Puft..." expanded polystyrene man! :D
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay_Puft_Marshmallow_Man)
I think the blobs could be fun, Thomas - have you tried a highly polished,
reflective surface?
I would also be interested in what differing blob strengths looked like - it
would be a wonderful effect if you got the parameters right to get that
stretched, interconnected blob filament look.
This is a nice new addition to --- The Thomas Gormley Collection! ;)
Keep up the good work.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27-11-2017 12:29, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>>
>> It reminds me a little bit of the Michelin Man or Bibendum. :-)
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards
>> Stephen
>
> I was about to say - "It's the Stay-Puft..." expanded polystyrene man! :D
Absolutely! Both of you!
It also has a vaguely disgusting alien look to it. I might need to use a
greenish, slimy, texture... [on todo list]
>
>
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay_Puft_Marshmallow_Man)
>
>
> I think the blobs could be fun, Thomas - have you tried a highly polished,
> reflective surface?
> I would also be interested in what differing blob strengths looked like - it
> would be a wonderful effect if you got the parameters right to get that
> stretched, interconnected blob filament look.
Strength and scale of the blobs are already randomly changed. I intend
to find the correct settings for those filaments indeed. I have not yet
been entirely successful.
I also intend to do a glass/photon sculpture of course!
>
>
> This is a nice new addition to --- The Thomas Gormley Collection! ;)
> Keep up the good work.
>
LOL I readily step aside for the original inspirer of this all.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> It also has a vaguely disgusting alien look to it. I might need to use a
> greenish, slimy, texture... [on todo list]
Hmmm. That would be interesting indeed.
> Strength and scale of the blobs are already randomly changed. I intend
> to find the correct settings for those filaments indeed. I have not yet
> been entirely successful.
Yeah - you may have to insert a few lines of code to limit the proximity of the
centers so that the density is kept low enough.
#if (vlength() < something) sorta thing...
> I also intend to do a glass/photon sculpture of course!
Of course - It's the first thing that came to mind, and I figured you'd do that,
so I didn't feel the need to suggest it.
I DO think that And's recently posted cloud/ice/snow texture would look
wonderful here!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/11/2017 11:29, Bald Eagle wrote:
> I was about to say - "It's the Stay-Puft..." expanded polystyrene man! :D
>
>
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay_Puft_Marshmallow_Man)
I live and learn. :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/27/2017 09:51 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> So, I abandoned my attempts at being smart and reverted to the basic
> filling of the container.
>
> This time it is blobs that steal the show, with some brushed metal
> texture. To make it more interesting (reflection wise) I included a hdri
> map.
>
I like blobs !
http://la.buvette.org/POV/brownian-move/mouvement-monoblob.mp4
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
