"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.484e748d7b589d73731f01d10@news.povray.org...
> Not to blow my own trumpet too blatantly, but I think this looks much 
> better!
> Although that's partly because you've also got the lichen texturing just 
> right
> - it looks really realistic. How do the render times compare?

I am very satisfied with your macros, Bill. It does an excellent job where 
my previous experiments with isosurfaces grinded to a halt because of 
excessive render time. This scene parses and renders in about 20 minutes, of 
which about 12 or 13 is parsing. But of course, the mesh objects are already 
done. The parsing of the column segment takes about 3 to 4 minutes with a 
resolution of 300.

>
> "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
>> took some experimenting until the shape came out right,
>
> I find this to be the case also.

Size and position of the inner shape are crucial in relation to displacement 
depth. And the resolution of course :-)

>
>> Another difficulty is the base of the column which consists of a flat CSG 
>> of
>> torus and cylinder. I have not (yet) been able to approximate that 
>> correctly
>> with the macro.
>
> Don't forget, you can relocate the object to be eroded before calling the 
> macro.
> If you move it upwards slightly it may improve things (the underside won't 
> look
> nice, but obviously that's not visible!). Another thing to try is the 
> inner
> shape - a wide rounded cylinder could well work better than the default
> squashed sphere.
>
Yes, I am aware of the relocation posibillities and have used those 
extensively (min_extent and max_extent are pretty helpful here) and have 
used also a cylinder as inner shape which works better for these column 
segments.
My problem for the time being is with the column base which consists of a 
complex CSG of toruses and cylinders. I probably have to think about a 
complex inner shape too, especially as the object is very flat.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message