 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This was such a nice result I thought I had to share it.
I'm pretty happy with the basic layout, although I might tweak the camera
viewpoint to sort out the visibility of the columns on the far side. Then I
need to put brickwork in the outer walls, some extra detailing here and there,
the floor, some vegetation...
Comments welcome as always
Bill
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ruins04.jpg' (100 KB)
Preview of image 'ruins04.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Great thing!
The material's still not perfect... or maybe the generated mesh is too smooth
(too low-res) to look right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> This was such a nice result I thought I had to share it.
>
> I'm pretty happy with the basic layout, although I might tweak the camera
> viewpoint to sort out the visibility of the columns on the far side. Then I
> need to put brickwork in the outer walls, some extra detailing here and there,
> the floor, some vegetation...
>
> Comments welcome as always
>
> Bill
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Coming along beautifully. Right now, as a WIP it does carry a sense of
tidied up ruin, as if it is 'ruin' on display in a museum, much because
of the clean ground plane. Some of this effect is also derived I think
from the present day look of ruins, where a column has been rebuilt from
fractured stones, but there isn't always the sense that it was those
exact stones in that exact column that were stressed together initially.
There is a very nice feel of a sort of sandstone or even soft marble
about the whole thing. I am really excited to see wher ethis goes.
-Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> This was such a nice result I thought I had to share it.
>
> I'm pretty happy with the basic layout, although I might tweak the camera
> viewpoint to sort out the visibility of the columns on the far side. Then I
> need to put brickwork in the outer walls, some extra detailing here and there,
> the floor, some vegetation...
That looks really good. Especially the lighting, but should there be a little
more contrast given that the sun is pretty high in the sky? The stone looks
good too, but of course the more contrast and texture you can give it, the
better. Don't get me wrong, though. I really like where it's going.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wow that really looks great, lighting and modeling both! My only
suggestion/qualification is that to me I think it's the relative
size of the radius on the stones in the pillars and/or the smoothness that
clipca mentioned that is affecting my sense of scale more towards a small scale
clay model. It's just for the pillars, not the walls, and only some of the times
I look at it.
Charles
PS You've always done good stonework. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Great thing!
Cheers!
> The material's still not perfect... or maybe the generated mesh is too smooth
> (too low-res) to look right?
Both, really. I've since given the pigment a finer, grainy look, almost
normal-like close up. And you're right, the mesh is a low-res version. It too
will be finer for high-quality renders. (I would say this is a 'medium-quality'
render!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> Coming along beautifully. Right now, as a WIP it does carry a sense of
> tidied up ruin, as if it is 'ruin' on display in a museum, much because
> of the clean ground plane.
Yes, maybe 'ruins' is a misleading title. I was originally thinking of proper
fractured, partially-collapsed ruins, but I'm leaning more towards 'abandoned'
rather than 'ruined'. It may yet go either way! Some dust, detritus and
vegetation will quickly remove the 'tidy' look, I think.
> There is a very nice feel of a sort of sandstone or even soft marble
> about the whole thing.
Excellent; that's what I was trying for!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"triple_r" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Especially the lighting, but should there be a little
> more contrast given that the sun is pretty high in the sky?
I think you're right, and I will be juggling the relative brightnesses of the
lighting elements. There is a lot of diffuse light from the sunlit side of the
quad (out of sight) to illuminate the shadowed area opposite, but I think,
given the shadowed location of the viewpoint, there should definitely be a
greater contrast. I just hate to obscure detail with darkness! :)
It would be interesting to try an 'overcast' version too, with no sun. The
radiosity settings will probably need cranking up for that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Charles C" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Wow that really looks great, lighting and modeling both!
Thanks!
> My only
> suggestion/qualification is that to me I think it's the relative
> size of the radius on the stones in the pillars and/or the smoothness that
> clipca mentioned that is affecting my sense of scale more towards a small scale
> clay model. It's just for the pillars, not the walls, and only some of the times
> I look at it.
Do you mean the radius of curvature of the edges? It's the same value for all
the blocks. As I mentioned above, the meshes are low-res versions and will look
craggier in later instalments. And vegetation should provide some scale too
(when I get around to adding it!)...
> PS You've always done good stonework. :)
Cheers. It's been an ongoing theme for a while now ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is coming along very nicely. I am just sitting back and waiting for
updates...:-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
