> VERY Impressive sky!
Thank you very much!

> One thing about snow is that it's very "Rough".  Some links others gave
show
> that better.  I grew up in Alaska and you can see beautiful white smooth
> 'hills' that's actually rare.  Maybe away from trees and in rolling hills
> you can get that without much wind.

I don't get it... Are you saying that "my" soft hills are rare, but
possible? Or what? I can't figure the connection between the
different sentences, what they are referring to...

> Any chance you can give some details on the sky?

The sky isn't that difficult, really.

What I did was to model a hemispheric hull using
CSG. This then is filled with scattering media, here's the
code for the interested:

//Clouds
intersection{
 sphere{0,145 inverse}
 plane{-y,0}
 sphere{0,190}
 scale <1.5,.2,1.5>
 hollow
 double_illuminate
 pigment{rgbt <1,1,1,1>}
 interior{
  media{
   scattering{4,.1 extinction .6}
   absorption .05   method 3 intervals 1
   samples 25,150
   density{
    agate scale 30*<1,.5,1> color_map{[0 rgb 0][.85 rgb 0][.95 rgb 1][1 rgb
1]}
    warp{turbulence .9 omega .35 octaves 6 lambda 3}
    scale 2
    warp{turbulence .6 omega .4 octaves 7 lambda 4}
    translate x*5
    }
   }
  }
 translate y*-20
 }


The double-illuminate in there is just a precaution. The translate x*5
in the density statement moves the clouds to a position where the
effect of the sun still works (needs light...) and the translate y*-20
at the end places the hulls base underneath the heightfields horizon.
The colormap takes care that only a certain part of the pattern is
used for the clouds, whereas the warps take care of "crinkling" them...

Any questions remaining? Feel free to ask!

Regards,

Tim

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message