 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi friends!
After a first pass for my study on cloudscapes, and especially sunsets, I
focus now on individual clouds and experimenting. I use the POV's basic
scene for the environment. Here is a first attempt to a compact and
Comments and advise welcome.
I am aware that individual clouds are DF3'able, and that the subjet has
already been worked (cf Gilles Tran). My concern is to try and find a
single-pass yet effective and versatile way to get acceptable clouds, with
means to produce a wide variety of cloud types and coverages. If it appears
that a single pass process cannot meet that goal, I would like to automate
it.
Bruno
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'clouds3.png' (89 KB)
Preview of image 'clouds3.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bruno Cabasson" <bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspace fr> schreef in bericht
news:web.4683a2416089feb3e8ba46670@news.povray.org...
> Hi friends!
>
> After a first pass for my study on cloudscapes, and especially sunsets, I
> focus now on individual clouds and experimenting. I use the POV's basic
> scene for the environment. Here is a first attempt to a compact and
>
> Comments and advise welcome.
>
> I am aware that individual clouds are DF3'able, and that the subjet has
> already been worked (cf Gilles Tran). My concern is to try and find a
> single-pass yet effective and versatile way to get acceptable clouds, with
> means to produce a wide variety of cloud types and coverages. If it
> appears
> that a single pass process cannot meet that goal, I would like to automate
> it.
>
Imo, the vertical cloud is very realistic. There is one similar to that on
the 'screen' of the window I am looking through at this very moment :-)
The horizontal one seems rather 'undefined', not much internal turbulence. I
think it needs a bit more structure.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Imo, the vertical cloud is very realistic. There is one similar to that on
> the 'screen' of the window I am looking through at this very moment :-)
> The horizontal one seems rather 'undefined', not much internal turbulence. I
> think it needs a bit more structure.
>
> Thomas
>
>
I agree. That one on the right looks very good, and the one on the left
looks very familiar. I believe I have produced something similar in the
past. Please keep us up to date on your progress and your processes for
making these clouds. What are the technical details behind your current
attempts? Is that an isosurface with a density function? Rendering
cumulus in POV-Ray has intrigued me for quite awhile, and I'm still
pondering on how best to create the shapes involved. I can produce
small cumulus humilis type clouds using a few functions, but I'm unsure
how to do the towering cumulus and cumulonimbus type clouds that have a
well defined shape and a plethora of cauliflower type details. Anyone
have any ideas on how to model more advanced/complex clouds?
Skip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bruno Cabasson" <bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspacefr> wrote in message
news:web.4683a2416089feb3e8ba46670@news.povray.org...
> Comments and advise welcome.
I agree with the others. The one on the right is MUCH better. I think what
sets it apart from the left example is the depth and shading. That is to say
the other appears more flat-ish looking. Very nice job .... I'm staying out
of the cloud business (I'm not worthy !!! (Garth sez to Wayne)) ..... you're
doing a way better job than I could.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "Bruno Cabasson" <bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspacefr> wrote in message
> news:web.4683a2416089feb3e8ba46670@news.povray.org...
> > Comments and advise welcome.
>
> I agree with the others. The one on the right is MUCH better. I think what
> sets it apart from the left example is the depth and shading. That is to say
> the other appears more flat-ish looking. Very nice job .... I'm staying out
> of the cloud business (I'm not worthy !!! (Garth sez to Wayne)) ..... you're
> doing a way better job than I could.
>
> Jim
Thnaks! It's still embryonic, and I have to persevere .... I'd like to get
in-fine a simple process (trivial would be better) and generic parameters
to define atmospheres and cloudscapes that look realistic, with at the same
time a good versatility and a good operability.
Bruno
PS: I wrote Thnaks instead of Thanks, but it sounds funny to me. I keep it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
