On 6/4/2010 9:05 PM, Alain wrote:
> For the density. It would remain almost constent near the axis of
> rotation, then increase somewhat faster as you get nearer to the outer
> surface. I'd go for proportional to the square of the radius. At least,
> it looks reasonable to me. Use a cylindrical pattern:
> density{cylindrical poly_wave 0.5 density_map{[0 1][1,0.3]}}
>
> Your cloudy "sky" looks out of place here. A large transparent area,
> while good to get some natural light, is a great structural weakness,
> not to mention that that area is lost from the ocupancy potential of the
> station. If it's just a decoration for the inabitants, it's even worst.
> Also, as the illumination seems to come from that bright axial beam, it
> should be constant everywhere.
>
> If you want your buildings to taper toward the top, I suggest using
> prisms instead of simple boxes. But, unless a building is particularly
> broad, there is no real reason that they should'nt have a constant width.
>
>
>
> Alain

Thanks for the comments. Do I need to scale the density file to the 
scale of my scene?

The "sky" is also meant to place the opposite side in shade in order to 
produce "night". I've tried other methods like placing a sleeve around 
the lamp, but due to radiosity the opposite side is then never fully in 
the dark. I.e. the "bright" side casts reflected light onto the supposed 
"dark" side.

As for loss of occupancy, you're assuming people want to live in zero G. 
Only the areas near the surface have suitable "gravity".

The "sky" does look ugly though.

-- 
http://isometricland.com

Post a reply to this message