 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] free fr> wrote:
[snip]
I feel that this world is a sphere, with only the piled-up city forming a
tetrahedral shape. I think any cloud cover would be spherical... although I'm
not convinced I need any, it would just obscure the detail of the planetoid.
Some very light wispy cloud perhaps.
Interesting idea though!
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Aaah! A return to the tetrahedral universe!
I have a platonic relationship with it ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/12/2019 1:05 PM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> "Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>> Also, a night scene would be pretty cool.
>
> Aha, yes could be good. I'd need many lights though, which could be problematic.
> Moonlight perhaps.
>
I think you can make a light source only affect certain objects using
"light_group", thus reducing rendering time.
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12-6-2019 19:05, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> "Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>> Also, a night scene would be pretty cool.
>
> Aha, yes could be good. I'd need many lights though, which could be problematic.
> Moonlight perhaps.
>
Instead of lights, you can use finish {emission 1} for the window panes.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12-6-2019 19:57, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Aaah! A return to the tetrahedral universe!
>
> I have a platonic relationship with it ;)
>
Of course! :-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 12-6-2019 19:05, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > "Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> >> Also, a night scene would be pretty cool.
> >
> > Aha, yes could be good. I'd need many lights though, which could be problematic.
> > Moonlight perhaps.
> >
>
> Instead of lights, you can use finish {emission 1} for the window panes.
Yes, and since I've been using UberPOV of late, this is probably the best
solution.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 6/12/2019 1:05 PM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > "Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> >> Also, a night scene would be pretty cool.
> >
> > Aha, yes could be good. I'd need many lights though, which could be problematic.
> > Moonlight perhaps.
> >
>
> I think you can make a light source only affect certain objects using
> "light_group", thus reducing rendering time.
Yes, that's the problem I had in mind! Will be quite fiddly to segregate this
scene given how it's been assembled. I think emissive windows / lightblobs with
UberPOV's count cranked up is the way I'll be heading...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 19-06-13 à 16:18, Bill Pragnell a écrit :
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> On 12-6-2019 19:05, Bill Pragnell wrote:
>>> "Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>>>> Also, a night scene would be pretty cool.
>>>
>>> Aha, yes could be good. I'd need many lights though, which could be problematic.
>>> Moonlight perhaps.
>>>
>>
>> Instead of lights, you can use finish {emission 1} for the window panes.
>
> Yes, and since I've been using UberPOV of late, this is probably the best
> solution.
>
Using finish{emission 1} is not limited to UberPOV. It works very well
in version 3.7+
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> Le 19-06-13 à 16:18, Bill Pragnell a écrit :
> > Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> >> On 12-6-2019 19:05, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> >>> "Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> >>>> Also, a night scene would be pretty cool.
> >>>
> >>> Aha, yes could be good. I'd need many lights though, which could be problematic.
> >>> Moonlight perhaps.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Instead of lights, you can use finish {emission 1} for the window panes.
> >
> > Yes, and since I've been using UberPOV of late, this is probably the best
> > solution.
> >
>
> Using finish{emission 1} is not limited to UberPOV. It works very well
> in version 3.7+
Yes, but I find decent radiosity results difficult to achieve in base POV-Ray
without very slow renders. I think the slight graininess of Uber is a good
trade-off for speed and zero artefacts!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 19-06-14 à 09:56, Bill Pragnell a écrit :
> Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:
>> Le 19-06-13 à 16:18, Bill Pragnell a écrit :
>>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>>> On 12-6-2019 19:05, Bill Pragnell wrote:
>>>>> "Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>>>>>> Also, a night scene would be pretty cool.
>>>>>
>>>>> Aha, yes could be good. I'd need many lights though, which could be problematic.
>>>>> Moonlight perhaps.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Instead of lights, you can use finish {emission 1} for the window panes.
>>>
>>> Yes, and since I've been using UberPOV of late, this is probably the best
>>> solution.
>>>
>>
>> Using finish{emission 1} is not limited to UberPOV. It works very well
>> in version 3.7+
>
> Yes, but I find decent radiosity results difficult to achieve in base POV-Ray
> without very slow renders. I think the slight graininess of Uber is a good
> trade-off for speed and zero artefacts!
>
>
Using importance can improve your speed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
