"Bruno Cabasson" <bru### [at] cabassoncom> wrote:
> "And" <49341109@ntnu.edu.tw> wrote:
> > "Bruno Cabasson" <bru### [at] cabassoncom> wrote:
> > > "And" <49341109@ntnu.edu.tw> wrote:
> > > > Alain Martel <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:

> > > > > > Your cloud do have some great properties. Although it is unexpected
simple(the
> > > > > > pov-code). The fluffy appearance is what I want. And the coverage is
moderate.
> > > > > > But in fact the real geometry shows the top and bottom are truncated by
the
> > > > > > boundary(800m~1200m). I will think how to solve this in the future, but if
you
> > > > > > have idea I think it will be nice.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You may use a planar pattern to hide that. Just scale and translate it
> > > > > properly, and add a map or use an alternate wave type to control how it
> > > > > need to fade near the container's edges.
> > > >
> > > > How do you combine these two(The original and the planar pattern)? I can't
spend
> > > > time to try it right now, but I wish to look your code (even a simple
example).
> > >
> > > I think the planar (or equivalent) pattern can be used as an additional density
> > > function (that will multiply with the main one). I did use this for some other
> > > clouscapes atempts.
> >
> >
> > Multiply is a straightforward idea that combine these functions. I have doubts
> > about it because it seem change the original pattern (unnatural) ....but I
> > hardly ever try it. You said that you have used it. Is the effect fine?
>
> I once could get this, and IIRC, the truncation was mitigated with such a
> function. Alas, I lost the code after a USB stick corruption. But the principle
> seems OK, provided  the parameters are properly tweaked (tricky).
>
> B.


Thank you.

Post a reply to this message