Bill Pragnell wrote:
> An update on my Escher print interpretation.
> 
> I was clearly lying in the previous post, I wasn't happy with the building
> geometry at all! It's a bit better now. I've made the whole thing bigger,
> put loads of windows and doorframes and detail guff like that, added
> flagpoles, textured the floor a bit better (not that you can tell at this
> resolution) and just generally tidied up. I expect my careful wall
> texturing is completely invisible at this zoom factor - if anyone can make
> it out I'd be interested in your comments. It's a kind of patchy, speckled
> surface such as might be seen on concrete from a distance.
> 
> I'm almost happy with the boulder.
> 
> Still to do: some people for the verandahs, trees and bushes for the
> boulder, maybe some rock strata for the boulder? Not sure if that would
> work. Must investigate. I also think I'm a too bit close and wide-angle -
> there's too much perspective on the nearside vertices. I need to move the
> camera back a little.
> 
> I've done bushes and trees, I just haven't written a macro to place them
> yet. Discovered the trace() function last week - genius! I got a bit bogged
> down with the trees - I know there are some very good tree macros out
> there, but I like to do it all myself if I can. :)
> 
> Anyway, comments....?
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
Beautiful and ingenious!  About the wall texture it seems to be a matter 
of the scale you mention and the high diffuse.  The texture on the 
terraces and walkways is beautiful, especially how it gets grungy toward 
the edges but its tonal similarity to the boulder bothers me a bit.  Not 
sure if I like that or not.  My tendency is to think you would get more 
out of the image if the walkways stood out more as a pattern against the 
shape of the boulder.

Post a reply to this message