 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rene Bui" <ren### [at] free fr> wrote:
> No words !
Merci !
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> Great work!
Thank you!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Trevor G Quayle" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Looking really good. How much of that 5h is parse time?
pure calculation of the plant coordinnates by doing 36 iterations.
90 % of the 5 h is due to calculation of plant plant competition.
Image was rendered in 3072*2304 pixels and scaled down later. It took 10 h
to render. Parsing time was 20 s.
Norbert Kern
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v2 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Highly impressive...
Thank you!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Zeger Knaepen" <zeg### [at] povplacecom> wrote:
> you know, when watching tech-demos like that one of the CryEngine2, I
> sometimes wonder why I'm still working with slow raytrace-renderers like
> POV-Ray. The images rendered at, say, 30fps by Crysis are much more
> realistic than what I could do in months POVSDL-coding, parsing and
> tracing, at about 20hpf (hours per frame). So I sometimes even wonder
> what's the point of raytracing, those games-engines seem to be much more
> interesting?
>
> but looking at an image like this, I realise games-engines still have a
> very long way to go :)
>
> and so do I :-/ :)
I don't want to be better than hard working experienced game programmers.
I want to learn something about nature and myself - it's a hobby and not a
profession.
Since 5 years I thought of making this. Now when I made the first steps it
seems so easy that I don't understand why it took so long.
Norbert Kern
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Norbert Kern wrote:
> I introduced water preference based on areal height, corrected some errors
> and doubled speed by replacing eval_pigment with functions and other small
> changes.
>
> The attached images show a test with 16000 plants of 8 different types and
> 36 iterations. Calculation took 5 h on an old 2.66 GHz P4. The 8 differnt
> plant types are represented by the same 4 plant meshes as in WIP1.
Very nice. I missed the first one; I feel the loss. :)
I tried something like this for my landscapes, but the results were
sucky^H^H^H^H^Huninspiring. My scene took two days to parse (on a PII
366), so I said fsck it and killed it before it started rendering.
Do you have any intention of posting the macro for this? If so, I might
take another stab at using it in my landscapes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> Now when I made the first steps it
> seems so easy that I don't understand why it took so long.
>
>
> Norbert Kern
<Gasp> <Choke> EASY??? I don't even understand half of your discussion,
but the results are amazing!
Just keep doing whay you're doing!
RG
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looking good!
I'd want to be able to put arbitrary user-defined paved areas and such
around it... I.e. define arbitrarily shaped patches of vegetation. For
instance, I'm picturing something like those little vegetated circle they
put in the center of some intersections... Or, be able to define absolute
0-probability growth areas within the rectangle (I think this might be the
way you're heading?), allowing a csg or mesh road going through the larger
vegetated environment. (Same net effect...)
What kind of system/script are you writing the "calculations" in?
Charles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
High!
Norbert Kern wrote:
> A small update.
>
> I introduced water preference based on areal height, corrected some errors
> and doubled speed by replacing eval_pigment with functions and other small
> changes.
>
> The attached images show a test with 16000 plants of 8 different types and
> 36 iterations. Calculation took 5 h on an old 2.66 GHz P4. The 8 differnt
> plant types are represented by the same 4 plant meshes as in WIP1.
*Sigh* ...would still take several new computer generations before I can
render a flight over the blooming springtime steppes of Bactria in
bearable time... er, in realtime of course! I just hope my grand-nephews
or -nieces would be inclined to raytracing then...
See you in Khyberspace!
Yadgar
Now playing: Puttin' on the Ritz (Taco)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Norbert Kern spake:
> A small update.
>
> I introduced water preference based on areal height, corrected some errors
> and doubled speed by replacing eval_pigment with functions and other small
> changes.
>
> The attached images show a test with 16000 plants of 8 different types and
> 36 iterations. Calculation took 5 h on an old 2.66 GHz P4. The 8 differnt
> plant types are represented by the same 4 plant meshes as in WIP1.
>
>
> Norbert Kern
This keeps looking better and better - Pewsey wanna macro.... NOW.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Software Support Technician / Programmer
Polar Design Solutions
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
