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

>
> 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...

Of course, I could instead use a large image_map (or just a fancy bump pigment),
along with eval_pigment, to determine building heights (and placement)from the
pigment color at any particular pigment point. That has already been mentioned
re: grouping buildings into clusters, and I've used such an idea in the past.
It's probably a much better idea, with a more realistic city result too.

Post a reply to this message

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

> 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...

You could just define a simple bailout value, where after so many tall buildings
get defined, then it just skips any new ones....

Post a reply to this message

On 8/9/2017 3:12 AM, 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
>

I heard your bully-boys quote this morning on the radio (BBC R4). :D

> But I continue working... :-)
>
>

Head down and shoulder to the wheel. Hup! hup! :)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Hi(gh)!

On 07.08.2017 01:46, Kenneth wrote:

> Hmm, that could take awhile. I wonder how many years I have left to live! :-P

That's the basic problem with computer-based creativity - the current 
human lifespan is just too short to do really great things! If we had 
300 instead of 30 years left, what could we achieve in all those years, 
especially when collaborating? Entire star systems with planets worked 
out to a millimetre scale, simulations of complex civilizations 
inhabiting these star systems, down to the very individual people... a 
full-fledged Khyberspace in various historical and alternate-historical 
modes, with the beards and turban ends of its Afghans blowing physically 
correct in the desert wind, of course featuring all the immersion 
technologies of 22nd/23rd century virtual reality... perhaps 
Transhumanism will enable us to live theoretically forever (unless its 
energy source run out) in those worlds... or even emulate pre-computer 
age human life with death and afterlife according to the concepts of the 
various religions... for the inhabitants of Khyberspace, there for 
example might be an implementation of the gruesome Islamic hell, an 
infinitely painful endless loop... which only the highest-ranking 
programmers of Khyberspace may break, therefore they are worshipped by 
ordinary Khyberspace Afghans as a collective Allah... while only a few 
yottabytes away, there flourishes a hyper-scientific intergalactic 
civilization of immortal near-omniscient superhumans!

Keep on coding!

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

Post a reply to this message

On 08.08.2017 21:30, 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.
> 
NIIICCEEEE. But dead, too.

Random add trees to the edges of the walk ways, and also street lights
(on/off). Add also randomly various shop types to the bottom of the
buildings, some or many with fluorescent neon light. Even some buildings
might feature some green on their roof, or swimming pools. Make the
streets darker, add white or even yellow markings. Some buildings should
have full glass surfaces (reflective) with exception of the edges. Some
buildings could have a slight change in angle along their vertical axis,
to give some accent and create triangular or diagonal spaces at their
base. Maybe, the taller buildings should be clustered together mainly in
the middle of the town, or along some roads, but not all over. At the
moment, their distribution is too homogeneous, I think. Hmmm, cars?

This is not meant as critique, but as further suggestions to support
your great macro! i really like it!

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com

Post a reply to this message

Even an occasional empty slot, with a park, or playground, or small
houses, or gardens, or a public bath. Metro entrances, yes. A huge,
over-sized orange Trump statue - well, maybe not, forget that one. let
it be Obama. ;-)

Low restaurants, drive-ins, gas stations, Burger Kings, MacDonalds, Wendy's
.

:-D

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com

Post a reply to this message

Sven Littkowski <I### [at] SvenLittkowskiname> wrote:
> A huge,
> over-sized orange Trump statue - well, maybe not, forget that one. let
> it be Obama. ;-)

I'd say that at this point, it ought to be of a Founder or of Cicero.

Bread and circuses do not last forever.

Post a reply to this message

Sven Littkowski <I### [at] SvenLittkowskiname> wrote:
>
> NIIICCEEEE. But dead, too.

Thanks. And I agree; it needs some 'city life' of some kind (not necessarily
tiny people.) Some automobile traffic is my first thought (probably just 'Yellow
Cabs' to start-- those constitute the main traffic in New York City, BY FAR.
Only the most stout-hearted people drive their own cars there!) My own concept
of this city is basically a NYC-type place: congested, busy, kind of old, and
not much greenery at all (except for Central Park there).
>
> Add also randomly various shop types to the bottom of the
> buildings, some or many with fluorescent neon light.

Adding 'ground floors' to the buildings is definitely on my list. The neon-light
marquees are a good idea as well; I hadn't thought of that. Although, for a
night-time scene-- to show such lighting effects-- I think I would need to
change quite a bit of my scene code; I didn't design the scene with that in
mind. But it's not impossible! ;-) I *would* like to see the city lit-up at
night. (The last time I was in NYC, I took some night-time photos out of my
upper-floor hotel window, of the surrounding skyscraper buildings. They look
really magical.)

Post a reply to this message

Am 05.08.2017 um 01:34 schrieb Kenneth:
> A couple more views...
> 
> Forgot to mention that I'm still working on the rooftop 'junk' (obviously!)

"Greebles" is the technical term.

Post a reply to this message

Am 05.08.2017 um 04:12 schrieb Kenneth:
> I just noticed something strange about the PNG images I posted: When I look at
> the small *preview* images here in my post (using the latest version of
> Firefox), they look correct: identical to how they appear on my own machine,
> when viewed in either Photoshop or the Windows Photo Viewer. (BTW, I
> post-processed the images in PS, but only to combine two renders into one post.)
> 
> But when I click on the image previews here-- and the higher-resolution versions
> appear-- the gamma of the images isn't correct! They look darker, with more
> contrast.
> 
> Does anyone else notice this? Right now, I have no idea what's going on, or why
> they appear differently on the same website.
> 
> Honestly, I simply don't trust PNG images to show up consistently or correctly,
> anywhere! :-(  I should have posted them as jpegs.

Actually, it's the PNG images that should generally be considered more
trustworthy, as it is virtually the only image file format that includes
gamma handling right in its specification.

My bet is that you instead have a wonky post-processing workflow, as
your PNG file is seriously odd: The `gAMA` chunk in your PNG file claims
that the file was encoded with a gamma of 0.22727 = 1/4.4 (or
"pre-corrected for a display gamma of 4.4", as it would be called in
other file formats), rather than the typical 0.45455 = 1/2.2; I suspect
that `gAMA` chunk is outright wrong.


For the JPEG file format, as far as gamma goes there's only a W3C
recommendation for use on the internet. The file format itself is
blissfully unaware of gamma. So you just have to pray that the target
system /happens/ to interpret them in the way you intended them to be
interpreted.

Post a reply to this message