Hi everyone!

Is there any ongoing projects or thoughts about implementing some sort of
pattern turbulence? What I mean is exacly what it sounds like, a turbulence
that changes with a pattern. It could be usefull when doing rising smoke for
example. The syntax could be something like this:

warp {
   bozo
   turbulence_map {
      [0.0 turbulence 0 omega 3]
      [0.5 turbulence 1]
      [1.0 turbulence 2 lambda 4]
   }
}

This shouldn't be too hard to implement, I'm going to have a go at it
myself, just want to know what all of you think 'bout it...
And also, while I'm at it, is there any work going on with reflection maps?
Generaly I hate reflection maps but they are good for quickly making cheep
metallic surfaces.

/Anders

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 8 Jun 1999 02:41:29 +0200, "Anders Haglund"
<and### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>Hi everyone!
>
>Is there any ongoing projects or thoughts about implementing some sort of
>pattern turbulence? What I mean is exacly what it sounds like, a turbulence
>that changes with a pattern. It could be usefull when doing rising smoke for
>example. The syntax could be something like this:
>
>warp {
>   bozo
>   turbulence_map {
>      [0.0 turbulence 0 omega 3]
>      [0.5 turbulence 1]
>      [1.0 turbulence 2 lambda 4]
>   }
>}

I was going to suggest the exact same thing, though with a worse
syntax. However, I recently flooded the server with suggestions for
the new version of POV that I felt like waiting a bit :)

This will be really useful. I have often found turbulence and
black_hole warps insufficient in modelling reallistic wood textures.
Media clouds, too, can benefit from this. Running water, too.

>This shouldn't be too hard to implement, I'm going to have a go at it
>myself, just want to know what all of you think 'bout it...

Cool! I can blabber a lot about ideas and stuff, but when it comes to
actually getting my lazy s to code something, umm, I have exams, umm,
I am in vacation, umm, my little finger is sore /etc and generally
find a reason to not do so.

>And also, while I'm at it, is there any work going on with reflection maps?
>Generaly I hate reflection maps but they are good for quickly making cheep
>metallic surfaces.

Well, yeah, but you still have to scan a motherload of rays from the
object to the world in order to build the map. For example, as in
photon mapping, at pre-render shoot some rays from the camera to the
object's bounding box and trace those that reflect. Remember their
color and position and when it comes to reflecting, interpolate.
You'll lose detail and multi-reflection this way, but you said cheap
and quick, right?

>/Anders


Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message