 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Geoff Wedig" wrote:
> Yeah, those artifacts are really strange.
Yeah.
> You're using a blob, right?
No. I considered using a blob with a blob_pattern density but had to reject
the idea, as it doesn't allow me to assign separate turbulence to the
individual particles, which I need to.
I'm using a merge of spheres. Inside the merge is a single interior with
multiple media statements, one for each particle.
Using a union of spheres forces a whole lot of samples to be taken because
of the many intersections; that's why I use merge.
When using merge I can't place the media inside the individual spheres (that
doesn't work correctly). So I place all the media statements in the parent
object (the merge).
Using this method is fairly fast.
> I thought the flickers were really nice, personally,
> especially on the back stones.
I think it would be both faster and prettier to use just one light_source
(possible area_light) and manually moving it around a little and change the
brightness.
> I agree with others about the multiple sources.
Instead of using multiple sources I could use one source that moves around
in a circle really fast (currently possible) or a source that is an object
(not yet implemented).
> when doing multiple sources, overlapping might be a problem
I'm already using overlapping media if that's what you mean, and I've used
it often before. Could that be causing the artefacts?
> Also, the flames to the outside get drawn in towards the
> center somewhat, which might be tricky to model, although
> an attraction force between the particles may be sufficient.
Sorry, I've decided not to implement any kind of inter-particle forces in my
system.
> In fact, that might be something you want to do anyway,
> as the current flame is a little too broad at the top.
Real camp fire isn't necessarily cone-shaped is it?
Thanks for the feedback!
Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated March 29)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune <run### [at] iname com> wrote:
> "Geoff Wedig" wrote:
>> Yeah, those artifacts are really strange.
> Yeah.
>> You're using a blob, right?
> No. I considered using a blob with a blob_pattern density but had to reject
> the idea, as it doesn't allow me to assign separate turbulence to the
> individual particles, which I need to.
> I'm using a merge of spheres. Inside the merge is a single interior with
> multiple media statements, one for each particle.
Ok, I thought those artifacts looked like spherical shapes. I really think
if you do a fast anim of the spheres themselves (opaque, in other words)
that you'll find the same holes in the surface.
> Using this method is fairly fast.
Yeah, and it should work, with some fine tuning.
>> I thought the flickers were really nice, personally,
>> especially on the back stones.
> I think it would be both faster and prettier to use just one light_source
> (possible area_light) and manually moving it around a little and change the
> brightness.
Hmm, maybe take a weighted average of the particles' locations would work.
Ie, weight based upon the strengths (amount of emission) of the individual
bits.
Or maybe use two lights (areas), one large one near the bottom as above, but
one up higher that only uses the highest points. That is where most of the
flicker comes from, anyway.
> Instead of using multiple sources I could use one source that moves around
> in a circle really fast (currently possible) or a source that is an object
> (not yet implemented).
Same effect, really.
> I'm already using overlapping media if that's what you mean, and I've used
> it often before. Could that be causing the artefacts?
No, the artefacts are caused (well, assuming I'm right) by places outside
the container.
> Sorry, I've decided not to implement any kind of inter-particle forces in my
> system.
Drat. :/
>> In fact, that might be something you want to do anyway,
>> as the current flame is a little too broad at the top.
> Real camp fire isn't necessarily cone-shaped is it?
Not really, no. More of a teardrop.
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
i like it. except that i think the hotter areas (yellow and white)
would be located 'on' the burning object, not above it. looks great
though!
Rune wrote:
>
> Because the glow fire works on a black background only I've had to
> experiment with a media solution. This is the result so far. It's not
> perfect but it's a start.
>
> Media has both advantages and disadvantages compared to glows. Media works
> on all backgrounds but it is also slower. With media one have greater
> control over every aspect, but that also make it more difficult to control.
> Media is more precise (for example the turbulence is really 3D), but because
> of the complexity, errors are also more likely to occur. (There are a few
> annoying artefacts in the media in this animation and I don't know what
> causes it.)
>
> In this animation I tried placing the fire in a simple scene, and I think it
> works well. I also tried attaching a light_source to 20% of the particles
> (there are about 30 particles alive at a time), but I don't think it works
> particularly well. The fire doesn't flicker enough to the sides to make it
> worth while.
>
> Anyway, as always I'd really appreciate your feedback!
>
> Rune
> --
> \ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
> / The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
> \ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated March 29)
> / Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org
>
> Name: mediafire.mpg
> mediafire.mpg Type: WMPLAYER File (video/mpg)
> Encoding: x-uuencode
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:24:08 +0200, "Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote:
>
>> Real flames are transparent at the centre.
>
>Are you sure? I mean, a candle light is, but not a camp fire I believe.
>Reference images would be great.
>
Two here Rune. A street bonfire in Guingamp some years ago.
Hope these are some help.
----------------------
dav### [at] hamiltonitecom
http://hamiltonite.com/
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'GuingampFire1.jpg' (78 KB)
Download 'GuingampFire3.jpg' (41 KB)
Preview of image 'GuingampFire1.jpg'
Preview of image 'GuingampFire3.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
>
> No thanks, not right now.
> Radiosity in stills is slow enough for me! ;)
>
With glows it can be reasonably fast. I remember i made a short
animations with glows and radiosity:
Subject: New Glow (296k)
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:47:54 +0200
Newsgroups: povray.binaries.animations
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> >Are you sure? I mean, a candle light is, but not a camp fire I believe.
> >Reference images would be great.
> >
> Two here Rune. A street bonfire in Guingamp some years ago.
> Hope these are some help.
I have some bonfire photos on my website too.
Check out the last 5 images here...
http://www.xlcus.co.uk/photos/1999-11-06-fireworks/
TTFN,
--
Jonathan Hunt
http://www.xlcus.co.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"David Wilkinson" wrote:
> >Reference images would be great.
>
> Two here Rune. A street bonfire in Guingamp some years ago.
> Hope these are some help.
Thanks, they're great reference images!
Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated March 29)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Geoff Wedig" wrote:
> Ok, I thought those artifacts looked like spherical shapes.
> I really think if you do a fast anim of the spheres themselves
> (opaque, in other words) that you'll find the same holes in
> the surface.
No, I think they're caused by a low number of samples being used.
More specifically, one sample...
> > I think it would be both faster and prettier to use
> > just one light_source
>
> Hmm, maybe take a weighted average of the particles'
> locations would work.
Good idea! I'll try that.
> > Instead of using multiple sources I could use one source
>
> Same effect, really.
Exactly.
> Not really, no. More of a teardrop.
Well, I think it's often more irregular in the shape.
Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated March 29)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ryan Constantine" wrote:
> i like it.
Thanks!
> except that i think the hotter areas (yellow and white)
> would be located 'on' the burning object, not above it.
I'll try moving the fire a bit downwards.
Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated March 29)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christoph Hormann" wrote:
> Rune wrote:
> >
> > No thanks, not right now.
> > Radiosity in stills is slow enough for me! ;)
>
> With glows it can be reasonably fast.
Well, I'm not using glows...
Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated March 29)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
