"Tek" wrote:
> Looks quite nice, but I'd suggest using isosurfaces or
> dense media instead to get a more 3D feel.

Isosurfaces have sharp edges and are not easy to use to create flame and
smoke IMO.

> At the moment it looks a lot like it's just flat
> polygons facing the camera, which doesn't really
> suit pov's abilities

Heh, it looks like flat polygons facing the camera? :p

> it's only the early stages of the explosion that you
> can see the particles are actually media (and even
> then I had to pause the animation to be sure).

So it first looked like flat textured polygons, but after a closer
inspection you became sure that it was media after all?

> Where's the shadows?

Arg, you caught me!

> Is this just a real-time animation using a pov rendered
> explosion texture on each particle?

No, it's POV-Ray all right. But it *is* textured discs facing the camera.

Ok, so it's not a replacement for good old media as your observations
reveal...

> > The animation is 100 frames long and was rendered
> > at 320x240 AA 0.3 on a 1GHz computer. Try to guess
> > how long it took.
>
> I'd guess about 5 minutes per frame.... if it is pov...

But here's the positive side. It's only 9 seconds per frame, for a total of
15 minutes for the whole animation. Not exactly real-time as you thought,
but quite fast for a POV-Ray animation.

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Jan 20)
POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message