 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi,
I'm trying to create a sword. So far, it's basically a flattened
cylender that has it's upper and lower surfaces clipped off by a thin
cube.
The effect that I'm trying to create is where the flat part of the blade
sinks into the sword a little bit, and is filled with engravings and
etchings. This seems like something that could be done with surface
normals.
So far, I've got some pretty organic patterns with bumpy normals, but I
want to give the illusion that they are carved at a sleightly lower
altitude than the surface of the sword.
Is it possible to create a normal_map (or similar) that does something
like this, or do I have to resort to adding another cube?
-Jon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Perhaps you should read the documentation about slope_maps.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jon Wooldridge wrote in message <388C1D49.F23C00E1@gte.net>...
>Is it possible to create a normal_map (or similar) that does something
>like this, or do I have to resort to adding another cube?
A normal_map or bump_map using negative bump heights should work. (No
guarentees, I've never used bump/normal maps).
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> Jon Wooldridge wrote in message <388C1D49.F23C00E1@gte.net>...
> >Is it possible to create a normal_map (or similar) that does something
> >like this, or do I have to resort to adding another cube?
>
> A normal_map or bump_map using negative bump heights should work. (No
> guarentees, I've never used bump/normal maps).
>
> Mark
Another thing you can do with bump maps images is to use black patterns
on a white background. What this does is leave low areas where the pattern
is and raises the rest of the surface in effect giving you negative bump
mapping. On a two sided object such a sword blade you may have to split
it into two pieces, front and back, to get a different pattern on each
side and then union the two halves back together.
--
Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> Mark Wagner wrote:
> >
> > Jon Wooldridge wrote in message <388C1D49.F23C00E1@gte.net>...
> > >Is it possible to create a normal_map (or similar) that does
> something
> > >like this, or do I have to resort to adding another cube?
> >
> > A normal_map or bump_map using negative bump heights should work.
> (No
> > guarentees, I've never used bump/normal maps).
> >
> > Mark
>
> Another thing you can do with bump maps images is to use black
> patterns
> on a white background. What this does is leave low areas where the
> pattern
> is and raises the rest of the surface in effect giving you negative
> bump
> mapping. On a two sided object such a sword blade you may have to
> split
> it into two pieces, front and back, to get a different pattern on each
> side and then union the two halves back together.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing
> Links:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
> http://www.povray.org/links/
Would it be stupid to use a heightfield for this?
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remco de Korte wrote:
>
> Would it be stupid to use a heightfield for this?
>
> Remco
It would be difficult. The effect he wants is engraving rather than raised
areas. HF's would not apply well in this application I do not believe.
--
Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remco de Korte wrote in message <388D808E.CEF10360@xs4all.nl>...
>
>Would it be stupid to use a heightfield for this?
>
>Remco
I've used height fields before for cutting pieces out of a surface and it
works quite well.
I do tend to have a problem getting the height field aligned, but that could
be just me.
Gail
*******************************************************************
* gsh### [at] monotix coza * ERROR: COFFEE.COM not found *
* http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~gail/ * Insert cup and press any key *
*******************************************************************
* Definition of an upgrade: Take the old bugs out, put new ones in*
*******************************************************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000 03:28:37 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>
>
>Remco de Korte wrote:
>
>>
>> Would it be stupid to use a heightfield for this?
>>
>> Remco
>
>It would be difficult. The effect he wants is engraving rather than raised
>areas. HF's would not apply well in this application I do not believe.
Actually a HF is a very good idea for this case. The whole blade (half
of it anyway) can be modelled using a HF. Or, the HF clipping trick
can be used -- make a union of the HF clipped by the blade and the
blade clipped by the HF (see hfclip.pov in the standard demo files).
Peter Popov
pet### [at] usanet
ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2000 03:28:37 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Remco de Korte wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Would it be stupid to use a heightfield for this?
> >>
> >> Remco
> >
See PBI for a quick experiment.
The heightfield was cooked up with PSP, not the best tool for that.
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remco de Korte wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> >
> > Mark Wagner wrote:
> > >
> > > Jon Wooldridge wrote in message <388C1D49.F23C00E1@gte.net>...
> > > >Is it possible to create a normal_map (or similar) that does
> > something
> > > >like this, or do I have to resort to adding another cube?
> > >
> > > A normal_map or bump_map using negative bump heights should work.
> > (No
> > > guarentees, I've never used bump/normal maps).
> > >
> > > Mark
> >
> > Another thing you can do with bump maps images is to use black
> > patterns
> > on a white background. What this does is leave low areas where the
> > pattern
> > is and raises the rest of the surface in effect giving you negative
> > bump
> > mapping. On a two sided object such a sword blade you may have to
> > split
> > it into two pieces, front and back, to get a different pattern on each
> > side and then union the two halves back together.
> >
> > --
> > Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing
> > Links:
> > http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
> > http://www.povray.org/links/
>
> Would it be stupid to use a heightfield for this?
>
> Remco
I see no reason you couldn't use a HF for this. The reason you wouldn't
want to is that the bump-map should be quite a bit faster than actual
geometry. That's determined by your situation, of course. If the camera is
going to be REALLY close to the sword, the HF will give you better results.
If not, don't bother.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Despite your attempts to be anonymous, I have determined the following facts
about you:
You appear to live somewhere in the Orlando, Florida area and your ISP
appears to be Gate.net.
You are running Netscape 4.51 for Linux 2.2.6 (you might want to upgrade)
You have a Pentium I/II/III or similar computer
On March 30, your ISP appears to have given you the IP address 199.227.92.57
Your computer's clock is set a day ahead of what it should be
You appear to have a bias against Microsoft
Your first language is English
Big Brother
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Can you do that with anyone??
--
Regards,
Sander
Mark Wagner <mar### [at] gtenet> schreef in berichtnieuws
38e44dbf@news.povray.org...
> Despite your attempts to be anonymous, I have determined the following
facts
> about you:
>
> You appear to live somewhere in the Orlando, Florida area and your ISP
> appears to be Gate.net.
> You are running Netscape 4.51 for Linux 2.2.6 (you might want to upgrade)
> You have a Pentium I/II/III or similar computer
> On March 30, your ISP appears to have given you the IP address
199.227.92.57
> Your computer's clock is set a day ahead of what it should be
> You appear to have a bias against Microsoft
> Your first language is English
>
> Big Brother
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sander wrote in message <38e51398$1@news.povray.org>...
>Can you do that with anyone??
Yes, to some degree or other. I got most of the information from the header
of the message:
Message-ID: <38E5893F.2DB15EED@gate.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 00:29:35 -0500
The Message-ID line gives the URL of the computer that sent the message to
the newsgroup. I can then use the "trace" utility to find the path from my
computer to that computer, and by looking at the URLs of the intermediate
computers, I can usually deduce the physical location of each. The time
zone given in the date provides a cross-check of the location.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.6 i586)
This line says that the person is using the "Mozilla" newsreader version
4.51. Mozilla is the name used by the Netscape newsreader. The [en] means
it is the English-language version, and the (X11; I; Linux 2.2.6 i586) gives
the operating system, in this case Linux 2.2.6 (the current version of Linux
is 2.2.14). The "i586" means that the version of Linux was compiled for a
586 (Pentium) or similar computer.
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.227.92.57
X-Trace: 30 Mar 2000 23:20:15 -0500, 199.227.92.57
I'm sure I could get some useful information out of these lines if the
version of the "trace" utility would work with IP addresses in addition to
URLs.
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> Yes, to some degree or other. I got most of the information from the header
> of the message:
>
> Message-ID: <38E5893F.2DB15EED@gate.net>
> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 00:29:35 -0500
>
> The Message-ID line gives the URL of the computer that sent the message to
> the newsgroup. ...
I tried this:
http://www.siteadd.com/whois.cfm?domain=gate.net
> ...
> X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.227.92.57
> X-Trace: 30 Mar 2000 23:20:15 -0500, 199.227.92.57
>
> I'm sure I could get some useful information out of these lines if the
> version of the "trace" utility would work with IP addresses in addition to
> URLs.
Is the trace utility a "standard" unix command?
Btw. wouldn't unix's nslookup 199.227.92.57 give some info?
--
mailto:tor### [at] hotmailcom
http://www.crosswinds.net/~tok/tokrays.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tor Olav Kristensen wrote in message <38E72B8B.28748F27@hotmail.com>...
>Is the trace utility a "standard" unix command?
Yes. Unfortunately, I'm using Windows right now since the modem that came
with my computer doesn't work under Linux.
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 00:45:09 -0400, "Mark Wagner"
<mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:
>
>Tor Olav Kristensen wrote in message <38E72B8B.28748F27@hotmail.com>...
>>Is the trace utility a "standard" unix command?
>
>
>Yes. Unfortunately, I'm using Windows right now since the modem that came
>with my computer doesn't work under Linux.
Have you tried tracert under Windows?
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] usanet
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote in message ...
>On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 00:45:09 -0400, "Mark Wagner"
><mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:
>
>>
>>Tor Olav Kristensen wrote in message <38E72B8B.28748F27@hotmail.com>...
>>>Is the trace utility a "standard" unix command?
>>
>>
>>Yes. Unfortunately, I'm using Windows right now since the modem that came
>>with my computer doesn't work under Linux.
>
>Have you tried tracert under Windows?
I'm currently using the "Sam Spade" and "Spike" network utilities
collections. The two of them together provide a fairly comprehensive set of
utilities.
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 2 Apr 2000 00:56:56 -0500, Mark Wagner wrote:
>Yes, to some degree or other. I got most of the information from the header
>of the message:
To what degree can you do it with me? What is the IP address of the machine
whose keyboard I'm sitting at? The machine that's running this copy of slrn?
What's the name of my ISP? Why does using Linux and Netscape signify an
anti-Microsoft bias?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5 Apr 2000 12:48:26 -0400, Ron Parker wrote:
>On Sun, 2 Apr 2000 00:56:56 -0500, Mark Wagner wrote:
>>Yes, to some degree or other. I got most of the information from the header
>>of the message:
>
>To what degree can you do it with me? What is the IP address of the machine
>whose keyboard I'm sitting at? The machine that's running this copy of slrn?
>What's the name of my ISP? Why does using Linux and Netscape signify an
>anti-Microsoft bias?
>
Oh yeah, and what timezone am I in?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote in message ...
>>
>>To what degree can you do it with me? What is the IP address of the
machine
>>whose keyboard I'm sitting at? The machine that's running this copy of
slrn?
>>What's the name of my ISP? Why does using Linux and Netscape signify an
>>anti-Microsoft bias?
>>
>
>Oh yeah, and what timezone am I in?
The IP address of the computer that posted the message to the povray.org
news server was 216.202.195.127
Your ISP is Fort Wayne Internet, LLC
You are in the time zone GMT -4 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 6 Apr 2000 02:06:50 -0400, Mark Wagner wrote:
>
>Ron Parker wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>To what degree can you do it with me? What is the IP address of the
>machine
>>>whose keyboard I'm sitting at? The machine that's running this copy of
>slrn?
>>>What's the name of my ISP? Why does using Linux and Netscape signify an
>>>anti-Microsoft bias?
>>>
>>
>>Oh yeah, and what timezone am I in?
>
>
>The IP address of the computer that posted the message to the povray.org
>news server was 216.202.195.127
False. That's the IP address of the proxy server I was using. The
computer that was running slrn has an IP address of 10.0.0.2 (which
isn't routable) and the IP address of the machine whose keyboard I
was sitting at is 207.51.177.81. In this case, I own the proxy server
(and it's configured securely) but it's possible, even likely, that
someone else is running an improperly configured proxy server that I
could have used to completely hide my IP address.
>Your ISP is Fort Wayne InterneT, LLC
True. That was the easy one, just a quick whois at arin.net. Again,
though, trusting the IP address. (If I wanted to be a real pain, I
could mention that Fort Wayne Internet doesn't exist anymore, as they
were bought out by Skyenet.)
>You are in the time zone GMT -4 (Eastern Daylight Time)
False. Fort Wayne is in GMT-0500, Eastern Standard Time, all year round.
The times on that message were inserted by the news server, which is in
the EDT zone.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote in message ...
>>The IP address of the computer that posted the message to the povray.org
>>news server was 216.202.195.127
>
>False. That's the IP address of the proxy server I was using. The
>computer that was running slrn has an IP address of 10.0.0.2 (which
>isn't routable) and the IP address of the machine whose keyboard I
>was sitting at is 207.51.177.81
I know. I said that that was the IP address of the computer that posted the
message to povray.org, not the computer that you were working at.
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
