 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have a fairly complex outdoor scene. I want to add some trees to it, but
trees take up lots of resources, so I want to minimize the impact. One of
the things I need is to have trees which provide shadows, and sometimes dim
reflections on other surfaces, but these trees are not directly visible in
the picture.
I'm looking for a way of reducing the resources used by the trees while
still keeping the shadows and (very) dim reflections. I'm using TomTree
(modified by Gena recently), which produces amazing (yet memory hogging)
results
--
Slash
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:3e4402f8$3@news.povray.org Slashdolt wrote:
> One of
> the things I need is to have trees which provide shadows, and
> sometimes dim reflections on other surfaces, but these trees are not
> directly visible in the picture.
>
Use transparent boxes with images of treer mapped on them.
Ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks for the reply.
Are you essentially saying "make them 2D transparencies"? I've considered
that, but I'm not sure how the results would look. It would be easy enough
for the shadows, but harder for the reflections since I would have to figure
out how to best rotate it. I might try that. Perhaps I'm just hoping for
some magical solution...
--
Slash
"ingo" <ing### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote in message
news:Xns### [at] povrayorg...
> in news:3e4402f8$3@news.povray.org Slashdolt wrote:
>
> > One of
> > the things I need is to have trees which provide shadows, and
> > sometimes dim reflections on other surfaces, but these trees are not
> > directly visible in the picture.
> >
>
> Use transparent boxes with images of treer mapped on them.
>
> Ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Slashdolt" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
news:3e441136$1@news.povray.org...
<snip>
Not particularily usefull (in that my implementation was a bit crap), but I
did something similiar in:
http://www.tomandlu.co.uk/webres/raytracing/gallery/pics/tmcont.jpg
with a series of stacked textured planes.
IMHO you should keep the method simple, and give yourself more time to play
with the textures.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Slashdolt wrote:
>Are you essentially saying "make them 2D transparencies"? I've considered
>that, but I'm not sure how the results would look. It would be easy enough
>for the shadows, but harder for the reflections since I would have to figure
>out how to best rotate it.
>"ingo" <ing### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
>news:Xns### [at] povrayorg...
>>
>> Use transparent boxes with images of treer mapped on them.
Thats how I did the kelp in
http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2002-10-31/cathe_rg.jpg
In your case, since the trees aren't actually in the image, render an image
of several trees arranged the way you want them and use one large box that
runs the length of the scene on the side you need the reflections from (or
both sides and behind the camera if you need reflections from all angles).
Added advantage; you can also then control the the brightness of your
reflections and/or how the trees influence radiosity by changing the
ambient & diffuse setting on your image map.
RG
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
