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

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'mediafire.mpg' (164 KB)

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.
> 

Quite impressive, as already said some more fire like structures would be
good, meaning sharper border and somehow more splitting it up into
flames.  I don't know if that's practicable with the current particle
system approach.  

> 
> 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.
> 

The moving shadows are looking interesting, maybe radiosity (or even only
radiosity lighting) would be worth trying.  

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

This looks like a gigantic candle. Pretty, though.

Post a reply to this message

Maybe my imagination (it *is* late at night right now), but I think I see a
ghostly face in the top of the flames, just for an instant.Strange artifacts
though.

I wonder what the overall effect would be if you had two or three of these
flames side by side, but close enough to look as though they were part of
the same fire, each having different turbulence settings, and each
interacting. AFAIK, fires like the one in your animation don't have a single
flame 'source', instead having their flames distributed over a circular
area.

Just a thought. Good work.

Andy

"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:3acb8527@news.povray.org...
> 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
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Good work there.

The lighting has quite a striking effect there. Nice.

Maybe if you add smoke the artefacts wouldn't be so obvious, but that
wouldn't really solve the problem...

Real flames are transparent at the centre. Do you think you could try that?

Nekar

"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:3acb8527@news.povray.org...
> 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
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Rune <run### [at] inamecom> 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.)

Yeah, those artifacts are really strange.  You're using a blob, right?  Have
you tried looking at the shape of the blob in those frames?  Is it really
the media being clear, or is it the media being thin in those spots?  For
some reason (shape of the spots?), I think it might be the former, and if
so, that can be fixed.  If the latter, maybe different turbulence would
help.

> 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.

I thought the flickers were really nice, personally, especially on the back
stones.

I agree with others about the multiple sources.  That might also help the
flicker.  However, when doing multiple sources, overlapping might be a
problem (unless they're a single media object, which might not be too bad)
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.  In fact, that might be something you want to
do anyway, as the current flame is a little too broad at the top.  The point
effect is due to the hottest parts rising faster and the surrounding area
getting drawn in, after all.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" wrote:
> Quite impressive, as already said some more fire like
> structures would be good, meaning sharper border and
> somehow more splitting it up into flames.

I suppose I came closer in the "Glow Fire take 3" approach?
This media is difficult to control! :(

> The moving shadows are looking interesting, maybe
> radiosity (or even only radiosity lighting) would be
> worth trying.

No thanks, not right now.
Radiosity in stills is slow enough for me! ;)

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

"Tony[B]" wrote:
> This looks like a gigantic candle. Pretty, though.

I'll remember when I need to make a gigantic candle! ;)

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

"Andy Cocker" wrote:
> I wonder what the overall effect would be if you had two or
> three of these flames side by side, but close enough to look
> as though they were part of the same fire, each having
> different turbulence settings, and each interacting. AFAIK,
> fires like the one in your animation don't have a single
> flame 'source', instead having their flames distributed over
> a circular area. Just a thought.

I'll try some of your ideas.
It should all be possible with just a single emitter though.

>  Good work.

Thanks!

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

"Nekar Xenos" wrote:
> Good work there.

Thanks!

> The lighting has quite a striking effect there. Nice.

I'm not quite satisfied with it myself.

> 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.

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