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

On 8/8/2017 9:57 PM, Stephen wrote:
> for out firemen

Tsk! tsk!




for our firemen


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Another view. No fog this time, but with radiosity (using the defaults, with
brightness .6. I haven't yet worked out the best rad settings for this kind of
scene... OR for an animated moving-camera version, which is even more
demanding.)

No new changes yet, just more buildings (2500 for this render.) And I'm up to 19
different window/facade image_maps now (and their respective window-reflection
'hold-out' mattes.)

The random heights of the buildings-- the number of stories (storeys?)-- is
controlled with this...

         ceil(2 + 40*pow(rand(PP),4))

.... so there are a minimum of 3 (because of the way rand works-- it never goes
to 0.0) and a max of 42, I think. I added the exponent to reduce the number of
really tall buildings... which actually wipes out many of the mid-size scales as
well. But it's fun to play around with.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'city buildings wip 2e.png' (2051 KB)

Preview of image 'city buildings wip 2e.png'

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:

>
> Fire and fury is in vogue. ATM
>
Funny thing: I just now saw that belicose Trump statement on the BBC-- I was too
busy building my little city to take note of today's world events. ;-) N. Korea
has some nutty leadership... but so does the U.S!! Like two little bully-boys
daring each other to a fight in the schoolyard... with nuclear weapons. My
little city may go up in flames soon  :-O

But I continue working... :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 9-8-2017 4:12, Kenneth wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> 
>>
>> Fire and fury is in vogue. ATM
>>
> Funny thing: I just now saw that belicose Trump statement on the BBC-- I was too
> busy building my little city to take note of today's world events. ;-) N. Korea
> has some nutty leadership... but so does the U.S!! Like two little bully-boys
> daring each other to a fight in the schoolyard... with nuclear weapons. My
> little city may go up in flames soon  :-O
> 

That image has imposed itself on me too I am sad to say.


> But I continue working... :-)
> 
The sign of true wisdom :-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 9-8-2017 3:30, Kenneth wrote:
> Another view. No fog this time, but with radiosity (using the defaults, with
> brightness .6. I haven't yet worked out the best rad settings for this kind of
> scene... OR for an animated moving-camera version, which is even more
> demanding.)
> 
> No new changes yet, just more buildings (2500 for this render.) And I'm up to 19
> different window/facade image_maps now (and their respective window-reflection
> 'hold-out' mattes.)
> 
> The random heights of the buildings-- the number of stories (storeys?)-- is
> controlled with this...
> 
>           ceil(2 + 40*pow(rand(PP),4))
> 
> .... so there are a minimum of 3 (because of the way rand works-- it never goes
> to 0.0) and a max of 42, I think. I added the exponent to reduce the number of
> really tall buildings... which actually wipes out many of the mid-size scales as
> well. But it's fun to play around with.
> 

This is really good indeed. A building tycoon would lick his lips and 
wring his hands seeing all that beautiful building space wasted on low 
buildings ;-) But surely he is not aware of the hidden subterranean 
problems impeding tall buildings in the first place. Interesting. I 
would need to think about the local geology... ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:

>
> This is really good indeed. A building tycoon would lick his lips and
> wring his hands seeing all that beautiful building space wasted on low
> buildings ;-)

Ha! True enough. (I can think of one such real-estate tycoon here in the U.S.;
TRUMP TOWER would *never* have been built with only 3 storeys!)

I need a somewhat better 'algorithm' than a simple power-law, to restrict the
number of really tall buildings in my cityscape; I don't want to wipe out the
middle scales at the same time. I need to think on this awhile...

Post a reply to this message