 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Cousin Ricky" <rickysttATyahooDOTcom> wrote:
> "Mike Miller" <mil### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> > Updated train on workbench. Added Santa hat on mannequin, ribbon/bow on train,
> > and a few Christmas cards. Getting close on this one. May tweak the view angle a
> > bit.
> > Miller.
>
> The textures of the metal trimmings on the locomotive look milky. I suggest
> lowering the diffuse and ambient values in the finish.
Thanks...I'll take a look at that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2023-11-29 à 09:20, Mike Miller a écrit :
> "Cousin Ricky" <rickysttATyahooDOTcom> wrote:
>> "Mike Miller" <mil### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> Updated train on workbench. Added Santa hat on mannequin, ribbon/bow on train,
>>> and a few Christmas cards. Getting close on this one. May tweak the view angle a
>>> bit.
>>> Miller.
>>
>> The textures of the metal trimmings on the locomotive look milky. I suggest
>> lowering the diffuse and ambient values in the finish.
>
> Thanks...I'll take a look at that.
> Usually, a metallic finish should have an ambient of zero, or a very
small value for a very dull surface.
Then, a diffuse should be less than 0.3. 0.3 for the dullest finish,
down to zero for the very shiny.
Use reflection with the metallic attribute.
The finishes in metals.inc and golds.inc are totally wrong. They have
insane ambient values. They where made to look good in an empty scene
with nothing but black to reflect.
If the metal is to have a varnish coat, add a second mostly to fully
transparent pigment layer above the metallic one. Add an interior
statement for the IOR : interior{ ior 1.5 } And use the fresnel
attribute : reflection{ 1 fresnel }.
That way, at high angle, you'll see almost only the metallic surface,
but, at grazing angles, you get the fresnel reflection dominating.
Tried that and compared with actual metals, brass actually, coated with
a varnish, and the result matched my physical samples.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain Martel <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> > "Cousin Ricky" <rickysttATyahooDOTcom> wrote:
> >> "Mike Miller" <mil### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >>> Updated train on workbench. Added Santa hat on mannequin, ribbon/bow on train,
> >>> and a few Christmas cards. Getting close on this one. May tweak the view angle a
> >>> bit.
> >>> Miller.
> >>
> >> The textures of the metal trimmings on the locomotive look milky. I suggest
> >> lowering the diffuse and ambient values in the finish.
> >
> > Thanks...I'll take a look at that.
> > Usually, a metallic finish should have an ambient of zero, or a very
> small value for a very dull surface.
> Then, a diffuse should be less than 0.3. 0.3 for the dullest finish,
> down to zero for the very shiny.
> Use reflection with the metallic attribute.
> The finishes in metals.inc and golds.inc are totally wrong. They have
> insane ambient values. They where made to look good in an empty scene
> with nothing but black to reflect.
>
>
> If the metal is to have a varnish coat, add a second mostly to fully
> transparent pigment layer above the metallic one. Add an interior
> statement for the IOR : interior{ ior 1.5 } And use the fresnel
> attribute : reflection{ 1 fresnel }.
>
> That way, at high angle, you'll see almost only the metallic surface,
> but, at grazing angles, you get the fresnel reflection dominating.
> Tried that and compared with actual metals, brass actually, coated with
> a varnish, and the result matched my physical samples.
Thanks for the info. The metal finishes I used have been tweaked from files long
ago. :) I'll review what I'm using and test out your suggestions. I'm sure I've
not tried adding a clear coat to basic metals.
Best regards,
Mike.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 29-11-2023 om 16:04 schreef Alain Martel:
> If the metal is to have a varnish coat, add a second mostly to fully
> transparent pigment layer above the metallic one. Add an interior
> statement for the IOR : interior{ ior 1.5 } And use the fresnel
> attribute : reflection{ 1 fresnel }.
>
> That way, at high angle, you'll see almost only the metallic surface,
> but, at grazing angles, you get the fresnel reflection dominating.
> Tried that and compared with actual metals, brass actually, coated with
> a varnish, and the result matched my physical samples.
I probably made a mistake somewhere, but I have a problem with this. The
object looses its shadow in my code (see the egg in attached image).
This is the code used for the egg finish:
ovus { 1.00, 0.65
pigment {rgb <0.4, 0.9, 0.4>}
pigment {rgbt <0.9, 0.1, 0.1, 0.99>} //varnish coating!
finish {
metallic
diffuse 0.0
specular 0.80
roughness 1/20
reflection {0.90 fresnel metallic}
}
interior {ior 1.5}
scale 0.5
translate <0, 0.5, 0>
} // end of ovus --------------------------------------
specular / roughness can be left out without visible changes btw.
Thanks for any light on this!
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'am_metallic finish.png' (297 KB)
Preview of image 'am_metallic finish.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 7-12-2023 om 09:37 schreef Thomas de Groot:
> specular / roughness can be left out without visible changes btw.
>
Not entirely true. Better leave those in place for the varnish (see image)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'am_metallic finish.png' (297 KB)
Preview of image 'am_metallic finish.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Op 29-11-2023 om 16:04 schreef Alain Martel:
> > If the metal is to have a varnish coat, add a second mostly to fully
> > transparent pigment layer above the metallic one. Add an interior
> > statement for the IOR : interior{ ior 1.5 } And use the fresnel
> > attribute : reflection{ 1 fresnel }.
> >
> > That way, at high angle, you'll see almost only the metallic surface,
> > but, at grazing angles, you get the fresnel reflection dominating.
> > Tried that and compared with actual metals, brass actually, coated with
> > a varnish, and the result matched my physical samples.
>
> I probably made a mistake somewhere, but I have a problem with this. The
> object looses its shadow in my code (see the egg in attached image).
>
> This is the code used for the egg finish:
>
> ovus { 1.00, 0.65
> pigment {rgb <0.4, 0.9, 0.4>}
> pigment {rgbt <0.9, 0.1, 0.1, 0.99>} //varnish coating!
> finish {
> metallic
> diffuse 0.0
> specular 0.80
> roughness 1/20
> reflection {0.90 fresnel metallic}
> }
> interior {ior 1.5}
> scale 0.5
> translate <0, 0.5, 0>
> } // end of ovus --------------------------------------
Try it this way:
ovus { 1.00, 0.65
texture {
pigment {rgb <0.4, 0.9, 0.4>}
finish {
metallic
diffuse 0.0
ambient 0.0
specular 0.80
roughness 1/20
reflection {0.90 metallic}
}
}
texture {
pigment {rgbt <0.9, 0.1, 0.1, 0.99>} //varnish coating!
finish {
reflection {0.90 fresnel}
}
}
interior {ior 1.5}
scale 0.5
translate <0, 0.5, 0>
} // end of ovus --------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 7-12-2023 om 14:19 schreef Cousin Ricky:
> Try it this way:
>
> ovus { 1.00, 0.65
> texture {
> pigment {rgb <0.4, 0.9, 0.4>}
> finish {
> metallic
> diffuse 0.0
> ambient 0.0
> specular 0.80
> roughness 1/20
> reflection {0.90 metallic}
> }
> }
> texture {
> pigment {rgbt <0.9, 0.1, 0.1, 0.99>} //varnish coating!
> finish {
> reflection {0.90 fresnel}
> }
> }
> interior {ior 1.5}
> scale 0.5
> translate <0, 0.5, 0>
> } // end of ovus --------------------------------------
>
>
Aaa...! Of course. Thanks so much!
The coating is improved with specular, roughness and metallic added.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'am_metallic finish.png' (284 KB)
Preview of image 'am_metallic finish.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/7/23 03:37, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> ovus { 1.00, 0.65
> pigment {rgb <0.4, 0.9, 0.4>}
> pigment {rgbt <0.9, 0.1, 0.1, 0.99>} //varnish coating!
This syntax makes use of the shorthand 'texture-aspect' update method
mentioned not too long ago as aside(1) here:
https://news.povray.org/povray.pov4.discussion.general/thread/%3C65518d6d%241%40news.povray.org%3E/
The first pigment{} updates the default texture's pigment, the second
updates the modified texture again.
As also mentioned in that aside(1) in povray.pov4.discussion.general,
when the interior_texture{} capability got added years ago this
texture-aspect update method didn't get extended to the
interior_teture{} too as should have been done. In other words, the
shorthand update trick, ignores any defined interior_texture{} without a
peep.
Well, on digging into the code recently with the idea of fixing that
long-standing oversight in yuqk, I found there are additional criteria
related to the type of pattern / special patterns in play too as to
whether the short hand texture aspect updates work - even for texture{}.
So... I'm now toying with the idea of making all shorthand updates,
parse errors in yuqk and suggesting this for v4.0 too. Essentially, yuqk
would be forcing the texture{} block specification(s), always, as a path
to consistent overall behavior.
This idea is easier for me to swallow because I tend to assign finish{},
normal{}, pigment{} (and interior{}) blocks to IDs before using them in
texture{} or material{} blocks - also assigned to IDs - prior to use
with objects. In other words, I already often code in this style. I do
it because it makes modifications easier - but, it also avoids some of
the subtle shifts / inconsistencies in parsing behavior which happen
today with the texture shorthand / aspect update methods.
Aside: As an additional plus, forcing texture{} block(s) would enable
eventual simplifications in the parsing code. This, rather than
extending already complicated code to support interior_texture{}
shorthand / aspect updates.
Thoughts / comments?
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 11/12/2023 om 03:29 schreef William F Pokorny:
> On 12/7/23 03:37, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> ovus { 1.00, 0.65
>> pigment {rgb <0.4, 0.9, 0.4>}
>> pigment {rgbt <0.9, 0.1, 0.1, 0.99>} //varnish coating!
>
> This syntax makes use of the shorthand 'texture-aspect' update method
> mentioned not too long ago as aside(1) here:
>
>
https://news.povray.org/povray.pov4.discussion.general/thread/%3C65518d6d%241%40news.povray.org%3E/
>
> The first pigment{} updates the default texture's pigment, the second
> updates the modified texture again.
>
> As also mentioned in that aside(1) in povray.pov4.discussion.general,
> when the interior_texture{} capability got added years ago this
> texture-aspect update method didn't get extended to the
> interior_teture{} too as should have been done. In other words, the
> shorthand update trick, ignores any defined interior_texture{} without a
> peep.
>
> Well, on digging into the code recently with the idea of fixing that
> long-standing oversight in yuqk, I found there are additional criteria
> related to the type of pattern / special patterns in play too as to
> whether the short hand texture aspect updates work - even for texture{}.
>
> So... I'm now toying with the idea of making all shorthand updates,
> parse errors in yuqk and suggesting this for v4.0 too. Essentially, yuqk
> would be forcing the texture{} block specification(s), always, as a path
> to consistent overall behavior.
>
> This idea is easier for me to swallow because I tend to assign finish{},
> normal{}, pigment{} (and interior{}) blocks to IDs before using them in
> texture{} or material{} blocks - also assigned to IDs - prior to use
> with objects. In other words, I already often code in this style. I do
> it because it makes modifications easier - but, it also avoids some of
> the subtle shifts / inconsistencies in parsing behavior which happen
> today with the texture shorthand / aspect update methods.
>
> Aside: As an additional plus, forcing texture{} block(s) would enable
> eventual simplifications in the parsing code. This, rather than
> extending already complicated code to support interior_texture{}
> shorthand / aspect updates.
>
> Thoughts / comments?
>
You are the expert here ;-) but I am very much in favour of your
suggestion/intention. The problem with the shorthand is very much that
it allows for inconsistencies in the coding. I certainly fell into that
trap here, which probably would not have happened otherwise. So yes,
please do. Thanks for your great work over the years btw.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2023-12-10 22:29 (-4), William F Pokorny wrote:
>
> So... I'm now toying with the idea of making all shorthand updates,
> parse errors in yuqk and suggesting this for v4.0 too. Essentially, yuqk
> would be forcing the texture{} block specification(s), always, as a path
> to consistent overall behavior.
>
> This idea is easier for me to swallow because I tend to assign finish{},
> normal{}, pigment{} (and interior{}) blocks to IDs before using them in
> texture{} or material{} blocks - also assigned to IDs - prior to use
> with objects. In other words, I already often code in this style. I do
> it because it makes modifications easier - but, it also avoids some of
> the subtle shifts / inconsistencies in parsing behavior which happen
> today with the texture shorthand / aspect update methods.
When I was developing RC3Wood v2.0, I found unblocked textures, normals,
etc. so difficult to shoehorn through the parser that I just made the
macros return blocks. While this was not a shorthand update issue, the
resolution was the same: work with enclosed blocks.
> [snip]
>
> Thoughts / comments?
I'm fine with yanking shorthand updates. I never use the technique
anyway, so I would not miss them; and since it uses a seemingly
ambiguous syntax to merely duplicate functionality of less confusing
code, I would discourage other people from using it.
On the other hand, I would not require all finish{}, normal{} and
pigment{} blocks to be enclosed in a texture{} block. This is too
useful and too often used in existing code to be discontinued. I don't
know if you had this in mind, but I'm just trying to keep my position clear.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
