"Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "Bruno Cabasson" <bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspacefr> wrote in message
> news:web.466d0ae043579e8de8ba46670@news.povray.org...
> > Depending on the effect I want it may be from <0.1, 0.2, 1> to <0.4, 0.6,
> > 1>
>
> ahhh .... fairly close to what I'm using.
>
> > or so (normalized afterwards). I first tweak the atmosphere, more
> > sensitive
> > for low elevations where the blue component is more scattered by the
> > thickness of the media, leading to reddening sky), then I tweak the clouds
> > density function and the light power.
>
> sounds like we are going at this with simular methodology :-)
>
> > Here is another try with 2 layers. But I am absolutely not satisfied:
> > turbulence and thresholds not very good.
>
> I'm using 3 layers and the sun (lightsource) is at the back of the scene
> that is to say I'm looking east at sunset. I have a rising moon and a
> shooting star that have a media componet to them .... I'm thinking about
> loosing the shooting star. anyway I'm feeling like I'm 70% there and at
> ~6hrs render time progress is slow. As you mentioned earlier that allows
> only one many two tests per day (and I'm not the only one using this
> machine). Please .... do post the results if you come up with something you
> like .... I'll do the same.
>
> Jim


Hi Jim!

Here are two versions of the same scene, with different elevation and
settings. Both use radiosity, and have a sun aperture twice the real one (1
deg instead of 0.5). For the first image, the elevation was 5 degrees, the
second was 2.5 and You can notice that some sampling artifacts begin to
show in the latter (some kind of horizontal bandings).

    Bruno

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'atmo_wip_1.jpg' (36 KB)

Preview of image 'atmo_wip_1.jpg'