"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> schreef in bericht 
news:4739b527$1@news.povray.org...
> Bruno Cabasson wrote:
>> As I got inspired by Terragen, I have named this projet TerraPOV.
>
>   I hope you have more success than I with my "Project Tierra".... I have 
> it stalled, waiting for large amounts of free time to expend... :)
>
Well... The Earth was not built in seven days...  :-)

>   BTW, if the rest of the elements come with the same quality as the 
> skies, it can be a great system!

I agree.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> "Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> schreef in bericht
> news:4739b527$1@news.povray.org...
> > Bruno Cabasson wrote:
> >> As I got inspired by Terragen, I have named this projet TerraPOV.
> >
> >   I hope you have more success than I with my "Project Tierra".... I have
> > it stalled, waiting for large amounts of free time to expend... :)
> >
> Well... The Earth was not built in seven days...  :-)

I thought that it was done in 6 days :)

>
> >   BTW, if the rest of the elements come with the same quality as the
> > skies, it can be a great system!
>
> I agree.
>
> Thomas

So do I, they are really very good skies.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote in message 
news:web.4739c699a0e33012726bd13c0@news.povray.org...
> "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
>> "Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> schreef in bericht
>> news:4739b527$1@news.povray.org...
>> > Bruno Cabasson wrote:
>> >> As I got inspired by Terragen, I have named this projet TerraPOV.
>> >
>> >   I hope you have more success than I with my "Project Tierra".... I 
>> > have
>> > it stalled, waiting for large amounts of free time to expend... :)
>> >
>> Well... The Earth was not built in seven days...  :-)
>
> I thought that it was done in 6 days :)
>

Opinions differ ...  :o)

Chris B.

Post a reply to this message

"Chris B" <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
> "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote in message
> news:web.4739c699a0e33012726bd13c0@news.povray.org...
> > "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> >> "Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> schreef in bericht
> >> news:4739b527$1@news.povray.org...
> >> > Bruno Cabasson wrote:
> >> >> As I got inspired by Terragen, I have named this projet TerraPOV.
> >> >
> >> >   I hope you have more success than I with my "Project Tierra".... I
> >> > have
> >> > it stalled, waiting for large amounts of free time to expend... :)
> >> >
> >> Well... The Earth was not built in seven days...  :-)
> >
> > I thought that it was done in 6 days :)
> >
>
> Opinions differ ...  :o)
>

So they do. But since it was before my time I'll leave it to my elders to
correct me. :)


Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> Bruno Cabasson wrote:
> > As I got inspired by Terragen, I have named this projet TerraPOV.
>
>    I hope you have more success than I with my "Project Tierra".... I have
> it stalled, waiting for large amounts of free time to expend... :)
>
>    BTW, if the rest of the elements come with the same quality as the skies,
> it can be a great system!
>
> --
> Jaime

Thank you Jaime!!

Coming from you it is a great encouragement for me!

I am not finished yet with skies. For example, I must integrate single-cloud
macros (with or without DF3 generation step), with optional flat bottoms. I
already have some results. I also would like to define a typology for clouds
and the corresponding settings in order to define "macro-settings". I also have
to deal with the Sun appearance and halo (not very successful until now).

For cumuli, the problem is different than clouscapes and quite tricky. I think
I'll have to do with single clouds. But I am afraid that the turbulence feature
is not completely appropritate for the 'roundness' of cumuli. I tried with the
current system, but it is not suitable for cumuli and I could never get
acceptable results (mainly because the density is based on standard patterns).
Perhaps a particle system will be necessary, but I absolutely do not master
that. Advice/ideas welcome.

For terrain, the embryo is close to be operational for the basic features.

'*' mean implemented
'+' means partielly implemented
'-' means not yet implemented.

The engine can (will) provide several views:
    *) Elevation view (see attached file in next p.b.i post), inspired by
Terragen: Grayscale with iso-levels and decorations, including text.
    *) Scene view
    -) Sky dome generation view
    -) Local view of the scene from above with all objects.

It can define the terrain either as
    *) pigment-based function (user-defined), allowing overhangs (isosurface)
    *) Height field out of pigment function
    *) Height field out of image_map
    *) Image_map generation from pigment function

It can (will) define the sky as
    *) Media, like the skies I already posted. Allows cloudscape to cast shadows
    -) Sky-dome image map (probably a sphere)
    -) DF3 generation for single clouds.

It provides (or will) for
    +) Placement macros and utilities
    +) Predefined textures (thanks for contribs)
    *) Water
    -) Embeded SDL-code (TBC)
    +) Adding user-defined objects, one main interest of TerraPOV.

One big piece will also be to incorporate vegetation. It can use POV-Tree, and
stuff from PlantStudio or so. I would like to provide for pattern-based
placement macros (I already have something for that).

I want all be declarative, so that a MMI can be easily plugged. For example, for
the last version of my sky system, and for the sky that is currently rendering:

// ======================== DECLARATIONS ===============================
#declare QUICK = no;

// Sun
#declare SUN_ELEVATIONS = array [5] {10, 20, 5, 0.5, -0.5};
#declare SUN_HEADING = 20;
#declare SUN_POWER = 4;

// Atmosphere
#declare Ta = 110*km;
#declare Ha = -1*m;
#declare BASE_SKY_COLOR = rgb <0.45, 0.65, 1>;
#declare k = 1.2;
#declare DENSITY_BASE_POWER = 4;
#declare DENSITY_POWER_FACTOR = 1;
#declare ATMO_INTERVALS = 3;
#declare ATMO_SAMPLES = 5;
#declare ATMO_QUICK_INTERVALS = 1;
#declare ATMO_QUICK_SAMPLES = 5;

// Layers
#declare USE_LAYER_1 = no;
#declare USE_LAYER_2 = yes;
#declare USE_LAYER_3 = yes;

// Layer 1: high low-density clouds
#declare L1_H = 8000*m;
#declare L1_T = 300*m;
#declare L1_SCATTERING = 2.5;
#declare L1_SCATTERING_COLOR = White;
#declare L1_ABSORPTION = 0.5;
#declare L1_ABSORPTION_COLOR = White;
#declare L1_INTERVALS = 3;
#declare L1_SAMPLES = 5;
#declare L1_QUICK_INTERVALS = 1;
#declare L1_QUICK_SAMPLES = 5;
#declare L1_DENSITY = density
{
    wrinkles
    scale <100,1,100>
    scale L1_T
    color_map {[0.63 rgb 0.0][1 rgb 0.2]}
}

// Layer 2: normal height quite opaque cloud cover
#declare L2_H = 1000*m;
#declare L2_T = 200*m;
#declare L2_SCATTERING = 1;
#declare L2_SCATTERING_COLOR = White;
#declare L2_ABSORPTION = 0.25;
#declare L2_ABSORPTION_COLOR = 0.5+0.3*(1-Pink);
#declare L2_INTERVALS = 3;
#declare L2_SAMPLES = 3;
#declare L2_QUICK_INTERVALS = 1;
#declare L2_QUICK_SAMPLES = 3;
#declare L2_DENSITY = density
{
    wrinkles
    scale <15, 1, 15>
    warp {turbulence 0.3 octaves 10 lambda 2.05 omega 0.63}
    scale L2_T
    translate <300, 0, 5000>*m*z
    //color_map {[0.35 rgb 0.][0.36 rgb 0.6][0.8 rgb 0.9]}
    color_map {[0 rgb 1][0.6 rgb 0.7][0.75 rgb 0]}
}

// Layer 3: Ground-to-Layer2 haze for scattering beams
#declare L3_H = -1*m;
#declare L3_T = L2_H-L3_H - 1*m;
#declare L3_SCATTERING = 1;
#declare L3_SCATTERING_COLOR = White;
#declare L3_ABSORPTION = 0;
#declare L3_ABSORPTION_COLOR = White;
#declare L3_INTERVALS = 5;
#declare L3_SAMPLES = 10;
#declare L3_QUICK_INTERVALS = 1;
#declare L3_QUICK_SAMPLES = 5;
#declare L3_DENSITY = density
{
    function {0.1}
}

// Camera
#declare VIEW_CAM = 0;
#declare FISHEYE_CAM = 1;
#declare CAM = VIEW_CAM;

// Radiosity
#declare USE_RAD = yes;
#declare BUILD_RAD_DATA = no;
#declare RAD_BRIGHT = 1 ;
#declare RAD_FILE_NAME = "sky_22.rad";
// ====================== END OF DECLARATIONS ==========================


    Bruno


PS: By essence, skies require intensively the media feature. What about media
with 3.7?

Post a reply to this message

> PS: By essence, skies require intensively the media feature. What about media
> with 3.7?

What's your problem, too slow? Send me a zip with the scene and all 
needed files (even the *standard* include files) and settings you want. 
As long as you don't use radiosity, I can use tiled rendering on it to 
spread it on a dozen machines.

Post a reply to this message

Bruno Cabasson wrote:
> For cumuli, the problem is different than clouscapes and quite tricky. I think
> I'll have to do with single clouds. But I am afraid that the turbulence feature
> is not completely appropritate for the 'roundness' of cumuli. I tried with the
> current system, but it is not suitable for cumuli and I could never get
> acceptable results (mainly because the density is based on standard patterns).
> Perhaps a particle system will be necessary, but I absolutely do not master
> that. Advice/ideas welcome.

   For my cumuli I used the object pattern, using as object a conglomerate 
of spheres, distributed in a loop to resemble the shape of a cloud, then 
used this with media and turbulence. But as you said, I never got realistic 
results with turbulence... it should be my fault, because Gilles used it 
very well on his DF3 clouds.

> It can define the terrain either as
>     *) pigment-based function (user-defined), allowing overhangs (isosurface)
>     *) Height field out of pigment function
>     *) Height field out of image_map
>     *) Image_map generation from pigment function

   I would add "isosurface based on a external heightfield". I have some WIP 
on this subject, and it is very handy, as you can control the general shape 
of the terrain with a heightfield "guide" and then add overhangs with an 
extra function. I even developed a method to add the overhangs only on the 
vertical parts, although it is very trick (requires calculating a "slope 
map" of the heightfield first).

> It can (will) define the sky as
>     *) Media, like the skies I already posted. Allows cloudscape to cast shadows
>     -) Sky-dome image map (probably a sphere)
>     -) DF3 generation for single clouds.

   For the skydome imagemap (which can be very useful indeed), take into 
account the possible output as HDR. This means getting a good balance 
between the intensity of the sky and the sun.

>     *) Water

   Plane, heightfield or isosurface? For close-ups to the shoreline, an hf 
or isosurface is very convenient.

  > One big piece will also be to incorporate vegetation. It can use 
POV-Tree, and
> stuff from PlantStudio or so. I would like to provide for pattern-based
> placement macros (I already have something for that).

   I think it's better to let the user supply their own plants/trees, you 
only need to provide the placement macros.

> I want all be declarative, so that a MMI can be easily plugged. For example, for
> the last version of my sky system, and for the sky that is currently rendering:

   Looks like the right direction to me...

> PS: By essence, skies require intensively the media feature. What about media
> with 3.7?

   IIRC, it will get ride of the container artifacts you are going to meet 
with individual clouds... ;)

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:

> > PS: By essence, skies require intensively the media feature. What about media
> > with 3.7?
>
> What's your problem, too slow? Send me a zip with the scene and all
> needed files (even the *standard* include files) and settings you want.
> As long as you don't use radiosity, I can use tiled rendering on it to
> spread it on a dozen machines.

Thanks for the proposal! I'll think of it if needed!

Concerning 3.7, I made a few tests and the results were different in brightness
and color. Maybe I'll try again... I also noticed that it was faster on the
contrary.

    Bruno

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> Bruno Cabasson wrote:
> > For cumuli, the problem is different than clouscapes and quite tricky. I think
> > I'll have to do with single clouds. But I am afraid that the turbulence feature
> > is not completely appropritate for the 'roundness' of cumuli. I tried with the
> > current system, but it is not suitable for cumuli and I could never get
> > acceptable results (mainly because the density is based on standard patterns).
> > Perhaps a particle system will be necessary, but I absolutely do not master
> > that. Advice/ideas welcome.
>
>    For my cumuli I used the object pattern, using as object a conglomerate
> of spheres, distributed in a loop to resemble the shape of a cloud, then
> used this with media and turbulence. But as you said, I never got realistic
> results with turbulence... it should be my fault, because Gilles used it
> very well on his DF3 clouds.
>
> > It can define the terrain either as
> >     *) pigment-based function (user-defined), allowing overhangs (isosurface)
> >     *) Height field out of pigment function
> >     *) Height field out of image_map
> >     *) Image_map generation from pigment function
>
>    I would add "isosurface based on a external heightfield". I have some WIP
> on this subject, and it is very handy, as you can control the general shape
> of the terrain with a heightfield "guide" and then add overhangs with an
> extra function. I even developed a method to add the overhangs only on the
> vertical parts, although it is very trick (requires calculating a "slope
> map" of the heightfield first).
>
> > It can (will) define the sky as
> >     *) Media, like the skies I already posted. Allows cloudscape to cast shadows
> >     -) Sky-dome image map (probably a sphere)
> >     -) DF3 generation for single clouds.
>
>    For the skydome imagemap (which can be very useful indeed), take into
> account the possible output as HDR. This means getting a good balance
> between the intensity of the sky and the sun.
>
> >     *) Water
>
>    Plane, heightfield or isosurface? For close-ups to the shoreline, an hf
> or isosurface is very convenient.
>
>   > One big piece will also be to incorporate vegetation. It can use
> POV-Tree, and
> > stuff from PlantStudio or so. I would like to provide for pattern-based
> > placement macros (I already have something for that).
>
>    I think it's better to let the user supply their own plants/trees, you
> only need to provide the placement macros.
>
> > I want all be declarative, so that a MMI can be easily plugged. For example, for
> > the last version of my sky system, and for the sky that is currently rendering:
>
>    Looks like the right direction to me...
>
> > PS: By essence, skies require intensively the media feature. What about media
> > with 3.7?
>
>    IIRC, it will get ride of the container artifacts you are going to meet
> with individual clouds... ;)
>
> --
> Jaime

Thanks for advise and kindness Jaime. You are one of our masters and I am
flattered that my modest work gets your attention.

I obtained 'correct' individual clouds that ressemble cumuli using turbulence,
somewhat like Gille's. But sometimes I see real huge round and nearly solid
cumuli occupying a large protion of the sky. I could never approach this
result.

OK for the HDR feature and format.

My next step now will be the Sun in order to complete the sky system.

At the moment water is flat with fade_power/fade_distance/fade_color,
reflection, normal and media in some occasions. I'll see later for HF's and
isosurface.

Concerning vegetation, I had in mind that TerraPOV could provide a basic yet
suffficient vegetation system, quite easily extracted from PlantStudio.
However, I'll see this when all the rest is OK.

I was many many many times confronted with the container artifact for media.
Glad 3.7 will fix it.

    Bruno

Post a reply to this message

> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:

>>> PS: By essence, skies require intensively the media feature. What about media
>>> with 3.7?
>> What's your problem, too slow? Send me a zip with the scene and all
>> needed files (even the *standard* include files) and settings you want.
>> As long as you don't use radiosity, I can use tiled rendering on it to
>> spread it on a dozen machines.
> 
> Thanks for the proposal! I'll think of it if needed!
> 
> Concerning 3.7, I made a few tests and the results were different in brightness
> and color. Maybe I'll try again... I also noticed that it was faster on the
> contrary.

Note that my renderfarm runs *3.6*, since I needed to modify the source 
code. I should merge the 3.6.1 changes... but it's not exactly a 
priority :) I'd rather wait for 3.7 code and rewrite all my changes (the 
new .pov-state resume file will be really useful!).

Post a reply to this message