 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"How Camp" <kro### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
news:r3t360pqf1patsd6kfftqaeveiobov4ukk@4ax.com...
>
> Thanks, Bob, this is exactly the sort of effect I'm looking for.
Very welcome.
> Is there a way to make a particular light only
> interact with a single object?
If you use version 3.5 (also beta 3.6), there is. Let's see... the 3.5 docs
tell more about it in section 6.5.8 if you want to check into that more. My
example would be like:
light_group {
light_source {...} // Only this light affects the object included.
text {...} // Included object.
global_lights off // No other lights allowed to affect this.
}
light_source {...} // This one doesn't affect the above, unless
global_lights is 'on'.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:24:27 -0600, "Hughes, B."
<omn### [at] charternet> wrote:
>
>If you use version 3.5 (also beta 3.6), there is. Let's see... the 3.5 docs
>tell more about it in section 6.5.8 if you want to check into that more. My
>example would be like:
>
>light_group {
> light_source {...} // Only this light affects the object included.
> text {...} // Included object.
> global_lights off // No other lights allowed to affect this.
>}
>
>light_source {...} // This one doesn't affect the above, unless
>global_lights is 'on'.
>
Perfect! Now, I just need to make the effect quite brilliant. That
shouldn't be too difficult. Thanks for the help!
- How
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 20:47:54 -0600, How Camp <kro### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:
>Perfect!
I spoke too soon. My understanding from reading the docs (6.5.8, as
Bob pointed out) is that a light_group can be formed with a
light_source and another object, and the indicated light_source will
only affect the object(s) in the light_group.
...So, what am I doing wrong in the following scene? Somehow, my
light in the light_group is affecting the two text objects outside the
group.
Incidentally, this effect seems to disappear if I comment out the
'looks_like {LightBox}' line in the scene.
camera {
location <0,0,-5>
look_at <0,0,0>
}
#declare LightBox=
box {
<-1,-5,-1>,<1,5,1>
texture {
pigment {rgb 1}
finish {ambient 1}
}
scale <0.25,5,0.1>
rotate -45*z
}
//light_source {<-10,5,-10>,1}
#declare MainTex =
texture {
pigment {
color rgb <1,0.9,0.3>
}
finish {
ambient 0.1 diffuse 0.2
specular 0.5 roughness 0.001
metallic brilliance 2
reflection {
<1,0.9,0.3>,0.5
metallic
}
}
}
light_group {
light_source {
-10*z,<1,0,0>
looks_like {LightBox}
rotate <0,(45-90*0.5),0>
}
text {
ttf "times.ttf"
"Flashy Text", 0.25, 0
texture {MainTex}
scale 0.5 translate <-1.25,-0.125,-0.125>
}
global_lights
}
text {
ttf "times.ttf"
"Top Text Above", 0.25, 0
texture {MainTex}
scale 0.5 translate <-1.25,0.625,-0.125>
}
text {
ttf "times.ttf"
"Bottom Text Below", 0.25, 0
texture {MainTex}
scale 0.5 translate <-1.25,-0.725,-0.125>
}
- How
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 23:09:38 -0600, How Camp <kro### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 20:47:54 -0600, How Camp <kro### [at] hotmailcom>
> wrote:
>
>> Perfect!
>
> I spoke too soon. My understanding from reading the docs (6.5.8, as
> Bob pointed out) is that a light_group can be formed with a
> light_source and another object, and the indicated light_source will
> only affect the object(s) in the light_group.
>
> ...So, what am I doing wrong in the following scene? Somehow, my
> light in the light_group is affecting the two text objects outside the
> group.
>
> Incidentally, this effect seems to disappear if I comment out the
> 'looks_like {LightBox}' line in the scene.
<snip code>
Remove the finish {ambient 1} from the LightBox, light_group constrains
the light_source but the box is producing it's own 'light' from the
ambient which is not stopped and is being reflected in the text, keep the
ambient and change the LightBox to pigment {rgb <0,1,1>} and you should
see what I mean.
HTH
--
Phil
--
All thoughts and comments are my own unless otherwise stated and I am
happy to be proven wrong.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamdeckingdealscouk> wrote in message
news:opr5ezuie0p4ukzs@news.povray.org...
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 23:09:38 -0600, How Camp <kro### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:
>
> > I spoke too soon. My understanding from reading the docs (6.5.8, as
> > Bob pointed out) is that a light_group can be formed with a
> > light_source and another object, and the indicated light_source will
> > only affect the object(s) in the light_group.
>
> Remove the finish {ambient 1} from the LightBox, light_group constrains
> the light_source but the box is producing it's own 'light' from the
> ambient which is not stopped and is being reflected in the text
Yep, unfortunately light groups are for lights and do not do anything else
to the objects in the scene except to shine for what's included in their
respective groups.
CSG is possble, so there's some chance of fixing it up using that. At least,
I've found that bounding the looks_like object to the text seems to be one
possibility. Only problem with it is the illumination is, of course, then
from that same text. You can face the camera the other way and see that
using the changed script below.
camera {
location <0,0,-5> // +5 z to see light object
look_at <0,0,0>
}
#declare MainTex =
texture {
pigment {
color rgb <1,0.9,0.3>
}
finish {
ambient 0.1 diffuse 0.2
specular 0.5 roughness 0.001
metallic brilliance 2
reflection {
<1,0.9,0.3>,0.5
metallic
}
}
}
#declare FlashyText=
text {
ttf "times.ttf"
"Flashy Text", 0.25, 0
scale 0.5 translate <-1.25,-0.125,-0.125>
}
#declare LightBox=
box {
<-1,-5,-1>,<1,5,1>
texture {
pigment {rgb 1}
finish {ambient 1}
}
scale <0.25,5,0.1>
rotate -45*z
bounded_by {FlashyText scale <0.5,5,1>}
}
//light_source {<-10,5,-10>,1}
light_group {
light_source {
-10*z,<1,0,0>
looks_like {LightBox}
rotate <0,(30-60*clock),0>
}
object {FlashyText texture {MainTex}}
global_lights
}
text {
ttf "times.ttf"
"Top Text Above", 0.25, 0
texture {MainTex}
scale 0.5 translate <-1.25,0.625,-0.125>
}
text {
ttf "times.ttf"
"Bottom Text Below", 0.25, 0
texture {MainTex}
scale 0.5 translate <-1.25,-0.725,-0.125>
}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:59:28 -0600, "Hughes, B."
<omn### [at] charternet> wrote:
>"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamdeckingdealscouk> wrote in message
>news:opr5ezuie0p4ukzs@news.povray.org...
>>
>> Remove the finish {ambient 1} from the LightBox, light_group constrains
>> the light_source but the box is producing it's own 'light' from the
>> ambient which is not stopped and is being reflected in the text
>
>Yep, unfortunately light groups are for lights and do not do anything else
>to the objects in the scene except to shine for what's included in their
>respective groups.
Thank you both - this makes perfect sense. I'll see what I can come
up with.
- How
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:59:28 -0600, Hughes, B. <omn### [at] charternet>
wrote:
> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamdeckingdealscouk> wrote in message
> news:opr5ezuie0p4ukzs@news.povray.org...
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 23:09:38 -0600, How Camp <kro### [at] hotmailcom>
> wrote:
>>
>> > I spoke too soon. My understanding from reading the docs (6.5.8, as
>> > Bob pointed out) is that a light_group can be formed with a
>> > light_source and another object, and the indicated light_source will
>> > only affect the object(s) in the light_group.
>>
>> Remove the finish {ambient 1} from the LightBox, light_group constrains
>> the light_source but the box is producing it's own 'light' from the
>> ambient which is not stopped and is being reflected in the text
>
> Yep, unfortunately light groups are for lights and do not do anything
> else
> to the objects in the scene except to shine for what's included in their
> respective groups.
>
> CSG is possble, so there's some chance of fixing it up using that. At
> least,
> I've found that bounding the looks_like object to the text seems to be
> one
> possibility. Only problem with it is the illumination is, of course, then
> from that same text. You can face the camera the other way and see that
> using the changed script below.
<snip code>
Shame there's no such thing as an object_group equivalent though I suspect
that would be computationally hideous. Quite funky though for effects like
the sphere in "Sphere" reflects the room but not the people.
-
Phil
--
All thoughts and comments are my own unless otherwise stated and I am
happy to be proven wrong.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Shame there's no such thing as an object_group equivalent though I
> suspect that would be computationally hideous. Quite funky though for
> effects like the sphere in "Sphere" reflects the room but not the people.
You could always use "no_reflection" on the people ("use sth. on sb."
doesn't sound like nice English to me, is this the right way to say
it?). They wouldn't show in other reflections either, though.
HTH,
Florian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <40657e56@news.povray.org>,
Florian Brucker <tor### [at] torfboldcom> wrote:
> ("use sth. on sb." doesn't sound like nice English to me, is this the
> right way to say it?).
Well, in this case, the ody's are ing's anyway. In relation to actual,
real-world ody's, this construction doesn't come up very often...you
usually do omeing. to omeody, rather than use omeing on omeody. For
instance, you spray omeody with a hose, not use the hose on omeody. It
doesn't really have nying. to with the "omeody" part, it's just that the
"use omeing on" construction can often be ambiguous: "how did you use
that ing?". In this case, there is no amibiguity, so there's no problem.
;-)
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hey, I'm not really sure I'm understanding what you're trying to tell me ;)
After rereading your post I think I got it - I first tried to look up
"omeody" in a dictionary. Hehe. Well, sth. and sb. are the abbreviations
I learned at school. Or is this some kind of dialect/speaking with full
mouth/whatever? Not easy for a non-native speaker to get from "somebody"
to "omeody" :)
And yes, normally I'd just use a proper verb, but that was just my
problem: Which verb should one use with "no_reflection"? Perhaps simply:
"You can prevent the people from showing up in the reflections by adding
no_reflection to their object declaration". But that doesn't sound much
cooler. And it's longer, too :)
Hey, what about "Just no_reflectioniate those buddies"? Goes along the
same line as some CVS-book I read which announced that "to version"
would be a valid verb since CVS :)
You know, it's a pitty that we were mainly taught English literature in
class (Here in Germany that is). So now I can interpret Shakespeare, but
I'd fail miserably when trying to explain somebody that my washing
machine is broken... I always thought school should prepare for life (at
least that's what they told us :), but hey, I'm going to study
mathematics soon, so it seems it didn't work on me :)
Florian
P.S.: fup2 p.off-topic set
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
