Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:

> > "BayashiPascal" <Pas### [at] BayashiInJapannet> wrote:
> >> That's really nice.
> >> I think you should also make different photos for the 1st floor of the
> >> buildings. At least to give them an entrance.
> >
> > YES, I've been thinking the same; it's on my to-do list now. A ground
> > floor/lobby would add a LOT to the look of the rather boring facades.
>
> Maybe make the ground floor very slightly larger than the rest.


> dimentions.

The ground floor being slightly larger is a good idea, and would add some
interesting variety to each building...or at least some of them, anyway. I'm
starting to think that the ground floor needs to be a separate construct from
the rest of the building. It would be easier to make that way (in my code) and
would not depend on the rest of the building's already-figured-out code
construction.

Post a reply to this message

Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

>
> IIRC, the NYC code requires its skyscrapers to have some kind of recess
> or step architecture to minimize the wind effects at ground level.

Yes, you're right. And it's a change that I've been thinking about as well, for
my own buildings-- adding scaled-down versions of the building sizes, on top of
shorter/fatter sections below. (The Empire State Building is one such iconic
example.) That should add MUCH more realism to some of the buildings. I'm not
yet sure what to do about the partial rooftops of the fatter sections, though--
what 'junk' to place there, if anything.

By the way, I actually lived and worked in NYC for a year, in my earlier life
(as a writer for magazines.) Loved it!

Post a reply to this message

> Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> 
>>
>> IIRC, the NYC code requires its skyscrapers to have some kind of recess
>> or step architecture to minimize the wind effects at ground level.
> 
> Yes, you're right. And it's a change that I've been thinking about as well, for
> my own buildings-- adding scaled-down versions of the building sizes, on top of
> shorter/fatter sections below. (The Empire State Building is one such iconic
> example.) That should add MUCH more realism to some of the buildings. I'm not
> yet sure what to do about the partial rooftops of the fatter sections, though--
> what 'junk' to place there, if anything.
> 

Usually, there is nothing of note on those parts. It can be asphalt and 
gravel (dark grey), plain concrete (medium grey) or metal : galvanized 
iron sheet or copper (vert de gris). In the later cases, use appropriate 
metal with a dull finish.

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>
> I've included a screenshot of the only pertinent dialogs I can find in PS 5.0.
> (Plus my computer's video-chip info.)

Oops, I left out the video-chip info ("Intel Q865/Q963 Express Chipset Family,
with Intel video BIOS"). Probably not important anyway re: this discussion; it's
not a video card, but built-in to the computer on the motherboard.

Post a reply to this message

Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:

> >
> > I'm not yet sure what to do about the partial rooftops of the fatter
> > sections, though-- what 'junk' to place there, if anything.
> >
>
> Usually, there is nothing of note on those parts. It can be asphalt and
> gravel (dark grey), plain concrete (medium grey) or metal : galvanized
> iron sheet or copper (vert de gris). In the later cases, use appropriate
> metal with a dull finish.

Thanks; those sound like easier solutions anyway, and would look good. :-)

Some of the buildings themselves need 'metal' for the structural edges of the
faces, rather than just colored 'concrete.' Like brushed aluminum or stainless
steel, or even chrome. Originally, I had not planned on doing that, but it's
very apparent in photos of real city buildings-- modern buildings in particular.
(An *older* example would be the famous Chrysler Building in NYC.)

Post a reply to this message

On 8/7/2017 8:46 PM, Kenneth wrote:
> Some of the buildings themselves need 'metal' for the structural edges of the
> faces, rather than just colored 'concrete.' Like brushed aluminum

No! I just passed the burnt out hulk today*. You don't want to use that. ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire

I've not commented on the animation yet because my enthusiasm might 
sound trite.
You are doing good work. :D

*
It was really disturbing.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 8/7/2017 8:46 PM, Kenneth wrote:
>
> No! I just passed the burnt out hulk today*. You don't want to use that. ;)
>
I've been following that tragedy on the BBC, here in the 'States. 'Awful' is the
only word I can think of. PREVENTABLE is possibly another.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/8/2017 7:56 AM, Kenneth wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> On 8/7/2017 8:46 PM, Kenneth wrote:
>>
>> No! I just passed the burnt out hulk today*. You don't want to use that. ;)
>>
> I've been following that tragedy on the BBC, here in the 'States. 'Awful' is the
> only word I can think of. PREVENTABLE is possibly another.
>

Criminal is a third word that is being investigated.
Luckily we don't need to worry too much about it in PovRay. :) Fires are 
hard to render. Which brings me back on topic. Are you going to 
incorporate your rolling smoke cloud in your new city?

The last I read (mid last month). There were almost 260 other buildings 
that had failed the fire safety tests. Including a hospital.
That is what happens when you reduce regulations to save money. 
Shortcuts are taken and fraud goes undetected.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:

>
> Criminal is a third word that is being investigated.

I do hope so. The idea that economic considerations (the cheaper cladding)
should take precedence over peoples' lives is...grotesque. Of course, it happens
all the time, sadly.

> Are you going to incorporate your rolling smoke cloud in your new city?

What??!! And mar my *BEAUTIFUL* new city with yucky green gas?! I think not!
:-P

Actually, I'm not sure what I'm going to add now; I might use the cityscape
as simply a backdrop for some other kind of scene. But that would be a waste ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 8/8/2017 9:43 PM, Kenneth wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
>>
>> Criminal is a third word that is being investigated.
>
> I do hope so. The idea that economic considerations (the cheaper cladding)
> should take precedence over peoples' lives is...grotesque. Of course, it happens
> all the time, sadly.
>

It is not just the cheaper cladding. The requirement for out firemen 
(I'll never get used to calling them firefighters) or independent 
inspectors to inspect the buildings was removed to cut down on red tape.
But enough, I'll start to get political if I keep on about it.
I see your country going down the same road, recently.

>> Are you going to incorporate your rolling smoke cloud in your new city?
>
> What??!! And mar my *BEAUTIFUL* new city with yucky green gas?! I think not!
> :-P
>

Fire and fury is in vogue. ATM


> Actually, I'm not sure what I'm going to add now; I might use the cityscape
> as simply a backdrop for some other kind of scene. But that would be a waste ;-)
>

Endings are so sad. I maintain my spirits by never finishing any projects.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message