Dunno if this has been asked before, but...

Does anyone out there know if POV-Ray is capable of producing
mathematically accurate water? With the stuff in the MegaPatch, there
would seem to be enough tricks to do it (with the exception of some
better "wave" normals, but an isosurface might be better for that
anyway.. I don't know), but I don't know if there's something missing,
or what the numbers would be.

-- 
Xplo Eristotle
http://start.at/xplosion/

Post a reply to this message

Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> 
> Dunno if this has been asked before, but...
> 
> Does anyone out there know if POV-Ray is capable of producing
> mathematically accurate water? With the stuff in the MegaPatch, there
> would seem to be enough tricks to do it (with the exception of some
> better "wave" normals, but an isosurface might be better for that
> anyway.. I don't know), but I don't know if there's something missing,
> or what the numbers would be.

How are you defining "mathematically accurate water"? Rolling waves?
Crashing waves? Caustics? Godrays? Fluid dynamics?

-Mark Gordon

Post a reply to this message

Mark Gordon wrote:
> 
> Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> >
> > Dunno if this has been asked before, but...
> >
> > Does anyone out there know if POV-Ray is capable of producing
> > mathematically accurate water? With the stuff in the MegaPatch, there
> > would seem to be enough tricks to do it (with the exception of some
> > better "wave" normals, but an isosurface might be better for that
> > anyway.. I don't know), but I don't know if there's something missing,
> > or what the numbers would be.
> 
> How are you defining "mathematically accurate water"? Rolling waves?
> Crashing waves? Caustics? Godrays? Fluid dynamics?

Caustics, reflection, light scattering, all that stuff. I'm not really
worried about how it moves, just how it interacts with light.

(And yes, I know I can fake it by playing around with numbers until I
get something that looks watery.. but that's not the point here.)

-- 
Xplo Eristotle
http://start.at/xplosion/

Post a reply to this message

Xplo Eristotle wrote:

> > How are you defining "mathematically accurate water"? Rolling waves?
> > Crashing waves? Caustics? Godrays? Fluid dynamics?
> 
> Caustics, reflection, light scattering, all that stuff. I'm not really
> worried about how it moves, just how it interacts with light.
> 
> (And yes, I know I can fake it by playing around with numbers until I
> get something that looks watery.. but that's not the point here.)

  I think Mark's question is a valid one and not easily dismissed. How
do you define "mathematically accurate water"? There are so many factors
that define the properties of water that simply implying that you want
"mathematically accurate water" is not good enough.
  The properties of water can be defined by it's mineral content, particle
size, particle quantity, depth, what type surface lies below it, the angle
of the light entering it, the intensity and color of the light entering it,
dispersion characteristics, the background color of the environment that
surrounds it, the atmospheric pressure acting upon it, the temperature,
the organic bearing content, and other factors I am sure that I am missing.
POV-Ray itself has no concept of what water is therefore needs very strict
rules to govern how water should be modelled. POV-Ray fortunately has many
tools in place to help describe some of these properties but if you need
more tools you are going to have to describe what they should be and how
they should behave in mathematically accurate terms.

-- 
Wishing you Seasons Greetings, A Merry Christmas, Happy New Millennium !

Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message