 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kirk Andrews" <kir### [at] tektonart com> wrote:
> > To do this *right*, I'm thinking you'd have to do a full-blown physics
> > simulation. But, I'm wondering if we can't get to a reasonable approximation
> > with some extra trace checks. Right now, it's only checking straight down from
> > above, but if we also checked across from the center point, maybe we could
> > eliminate points that didn't have a straight path from here to there. I
> > experimented with that idea some but I can't tell if it's really working yet.
> >
>
> Or, I suppose it could be as simple as what paint programs do with the fill
> tool, and treat it more like square pixels.
really what pulled me into the world of programming, and I'm incredibly thankful
for that. In the years since I left off of POV, I've been doing more and more
coding, mostly in PHP and javascript. So it's a bit of a shock to jump back into
POV and try and code things in SDL, and realize all the things I can't do! It
definitely forces you to get creative. It also makes you think hard about
optimizing your code, since you know any inefficiencies will likely have
significant impacts in parsing time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-2-2017 14:29, Kirk Andrews wrote:
> That's looking really good, Thomas!
Thanks, yes, especially the second image, which indicates to me that a
well-behaving substrate does wonders for your little code ;-)
>
> Which software are you using for erosion? Now that I don't have a PC anymore,
> I've got to find something to run on my Mac.
>
I am afraid that most are Windows only.
There is Wilbur http://www.fracterra.com/software.html which does a very
good job in tracing river patterns but needs a very noisy substrate to
do it correctly so additional smoothing is necessary (in Wilbur or - as
I do - in another application);
Terrabrush http://www.cyberfunks.de/page/terrabrush/index.htm is another
program I use in between but not so good for erosional processes;
GeoControl (which now seems to be WorldCreator I discover)
http://www.world-creator.com/ is not a free program. It is the heart of
my height_field creation modules. It does a fair erosion job. I don't
know about its latest versions though;
World Machine http://www.world-machine.com/ you already know.
I also grabbed a free copy of Bryce 7 when DAZ made it available a few
years ago. It can generate some interesting height_fields to serve as
basis for deeper treatment later.
Interestingly, You can make fascinating height_fields with Apophysis
flames as basis https://sourceforge.net/projects/apophysis/ . Loaded
into GeoControl for instance, the pattern is transformed into an
interesting landscape.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-2-2017 14:54, Kirk Andrews wrote:
> To do this *right*, I'm thinking you'd have to do a full-blown physics
> simulation. But, I'm wondering if we can't get to a reasonable approximation
> with some extra trace checks. Right now, it's only checking straight down from
> above, but if we also checked across from the center point, maybe we could
> eliminate points that didn't have a straight path from here to there. I
> experimented with that idea some but I can't tell if it's really working yet.
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/49nmnd5z1kzhms0/Water4.pov?dl=0
>
This version does interesting things, different from the previous one. I
am not entirely sure if it solves the problem and I need to investigate
further.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ka_water4.jpg' (210 KB)
Preview of image 'ka_water4.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-2-2017 13:17, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> This version does interesting things, different from the previous one. I
> am not entirely sure if it solves the problem and I need to investigate
> further.
>
I think it is worthwhile to re-think the random starting point code as
the existing one has not a coverage including the complete terrain.
I use RRand() from rand.inc (to be included into the scene) in the
following manner:
First, add the following lines after the height_field making:
#declare Min = min_extent(Terrain);
#declare Max = max_extent(Terrain);
Then replace the line:
#declare Pos = trace(ThisTerrain, <rand(r)-.55, 10*Flattening,
rand(r)-.55>*0.9*TS, -y);
by:
#declare Pos = trace(ThisTerrain, <RRand(Min.x, Max.x, r),
10*Flattening, RRand(Min.z, Max.z, r)>, -y);
The result is shown in the attached image, searching for 100 streams I
commented out the black cones).
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ka_water4.jpg' (186 KB)
Preview of image 'ka_water4.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> I use RRand() from rand.inc (to be included into the scene) in the
> following manner:
Can you also use VRand_In_Obj ?
What ..... stream are you using? :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-2-2017 14:01, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
>> I use RRand() from rand.inc (to be included into the scene) in the
>> following manner:
>
> Can you also use VRand_In_Obj ?
Yes, of course. It is a matter of taste imho.
Another interesting option would be to use a pigment_pattern, or an
image_pattern of a flow map, and only allow for streams to start from
the higher grounds. Hmm... going to have to implement that...
>
> What ..... stream are you using? :D
>
:-) ?
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Overall, I think that version 4 is doing a good job and solves the
problem of version 3. The attached image demonstrates that. Never mind
the columns for supporting the sky ;-) Those are little troubles at the
height_field's edges.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ka_water4.jpg' (180 KB)
Preview of image 'ka_water4.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Overall, I think that version 4 is doing a good job and solves the
> problem of version 3. The attached image demonstrates that. Never mind
> the columns for supporting the sky ;-) Those are little troubles at the
> height_field's edges.
>
> --
> Thomas
Nice work, Thomas!
Would you be willing to share some of your eroded landscape height maps?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 22-2-2017 13:17, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> > This version does interesting things, different from the previous one.
Fascinating stuff, as I watch fervently from the sidelines.
Has me wondering if erosion could be accomplished via difference {} using
likewise cone+sphere stream/lake creation method.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-2-2017 22:04, omniverse wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> On 22-2-2017 13:17, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> This version does interesting things, different from the previous one.
>
> Fascinating stuff, as I watch fervently from the sidelines.
>
> Has me wondering if erosion could be accomplished via difference {} using
> likewise cone+sphere stream/lake creation method.
>
You have had the same thought as I! This should not be too difficult to
do in principle. Something to explore...
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
