|
 |
Aside from any question as to whether this is realistic or not (looks
real enough to me) the most noticeable characteristic seems to be the
heavy normal visible in oblique angles yet practically nonexistant in
directly lit areas. In other words lacking 3D depth in the well lit
regions seems to throw me off somewhat. This could of course be
subjective.
I've made my own asteriods using the blob anti-blob method and never got
good enough results, always a potato. Also simply differencing a
surrounding group from the surface of another. Always disappointed with
the way it looked.
What this one seems to need most is obvious little craters peppering the
surface. The larger look great. And the intermediate would be rather
dust enshrouded I guess but I don't really notice any that stand out.
What I mean I guess is that the overall *un*sharpness is what bothers
me. Don't mind me, I'm just thinking of how all the space photos are
always like this and the unaided eye view would be nice to see. Not
relevant to your macro making really, it's mostly a fact of rendered
images, any sharpness tends to disappear when antialiased.
>
> Hi!
>
> This is my first post in this group.
>
> I'm developping an Asteroid macro.
>
> Here is a first draft.
>
> Of course, this macro can be greatly improved.
> That's why your comments, advices, etc... are welcomed.
>
> What do you think of:
> - the texture ?
> - the shape ?
> - the craters ?
>
> This Asteroide is a blob object made with 600 spheres for the body (positive
> spheres) and 330 spheres for the craters (negative spheres: 30 big crateres and
> 300 small ones).
>
> ___________________________________________________
>
> To answer me, remove the Z from my adress.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Image]
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aol com?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
