TonyB wrote:

> >When I do get it done, I'll most definitely post the bridge macro and
> >tree source, both of which are isosurfaces.
>
> You've really grown attached to them haven't you? :) SamuelT. and
> isosurfaces are beginning to sound synonymous already.

Isosurfaces let you have any object you want... that's what makes them so great.
The only trade-offs are a longer render time and a steeper learning curve.


> Very nice work there.
> At least at that tiny res, it looks realisticish. :)

Realisticish. I agree. It's not totally realistic, is it? Trees have got to be
the hardest thing to render. I'm still happy with the trees, though. It's a big
step from using a cone with a semi-transparent pigment on it :)

The parse isn't too bad for the trees, either. Each tree has about 100
isosurfaces rotated all around. Then I've got 30 trees, so that's 330 objects
making up the trees. Render time is a bit long. It's a lot faster than using a
bunch of semi-transparent objects for the branches. I might try to see if using
a bunch of opaque objects for the leaves is faster, though.


--
Samuel Benge

E-Mail: STB### [at] aolcom

Visit the still unfinished isosurface tutorial: http://members.aol.com/stbenge

Post a reply to this message