 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmail com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
