 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mark James Lewin" wrote:
> I like the fire after the explosion, but the way the
> mushroom cloud disperses looks a bit odd to me. Maybe
> if the column of smoke from the fire was thicker just
> after the explosion, and dwindled down, it may look better.
Thanks for the tip, I'll see what I can do.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mark James Lewin" wrote:
> Just saw your reply to Tek; so they are discs. To make
> them cast shadows, you could use a smart combination
> of light groups, discs and no_image / no_shadow to make
> a shadow effect.
I know. I could even make it work with multiple light sources by using
bounded_by tricks. However, while the smoke should cast shadows of course, I
don't know much about how bright fire and explosions cast shadows, if any.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Nikias" wrote:
> It does look really good, but by what I've seen
> your particle-system do before, I was rather disappointed.
Hmm. I had worked out a system with discs where I was actually under the
impression that I wouldn't have been able to tell the difference myself,
apart from the shadows and the places where the particles are intersecting
with objects. But everyone have very quickly spotted the shortcomings of the
system... I wonder if I had used a non-moving camera if it would have been
as easy to tell?
> As others have mentioned already, it looks
> 3D-Game-esque, not POV-RAY.
Apard from the shadows, I'd like to know how to make the fire and smoke look
better if anyone have any hints. As i said, I've worked on it for a long
time and am kind of unable to see if it looks wrong, and why.
> And you post an animation just as I'm about to take the
> next two non-computer weeks to work through a printed
> version of my Particle-System
A printed version of your particle system??? I have no idea what you're
talking about... :)
> and finally get it finished, now that my IRTC-Entry
> (my first!) has been sent in...
Good luck with both!
> See ya, and I'll just hope you'll post a media-version
> in a few days (hey, you've got two weeks, then I'll be
> back!) ;-)
Well, I have reasons not to work on a media version right now. Basically, it
will delay the release of my system. I just wanted to have *some* kind of
explosion included in the first version of the package. :)
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "Mark James Lewin" wrote:
> > Just saw your reply to Tek; so they are discs. To make
> > them cast shadows, you could use a smart combination
> > of light groups, discs and no_image / no_shadow to make
> > a shadow effect.
>
> I know. I could even make it work with multiple light sources by using
> bounded_by tricks. However, while the smoke should cast shadows of course, I
> don't know much about how bright fire and explosions cast shadows, if any.
Ah, well if you did them with media and radiosity you could find out!
...if you don't mind waiting a week for each frame to render :)
Or you could use this as an excuse to watch lots of movies with big explosions,
for research purposes of course.
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Apard from the shadows, I'd like to know how to make the fire and smoke look
> better if anyone have any hints. As i said, I've worked on it for a long
> time and am kind of unable to see if it looks wrong, and why.
Well the thing that really makes them look computer game-y is the fact that you
can see lots of seperate identical textures. The big boom is okay (except where
it intersects the box object), but the trail of fire afterwards has so few
particles that they are obviously independent objects. BTW, this would still
look wrong using media!
Plus their motion is such that it gives away where the seperate particles are.
i.e. all the fire is either following one motion or another, none of it is
inbetween.
I suggest you just use more particles, so they overlap more and clues that
they're seperate are hidden better. Maybe also use a variety of textures,
computer games never do that due to a lack of VRAM.
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Rune <run### [at] mobilixnet dk> wrote in message
news:3c6af03e@news.povray.org...
> "Tim Nikias" wrote:
> > It does look really good, but by what I've seen
> > your particle-system do before, I was rather disappointed.
>
> Hmm. I had worked out a system with discs where I was actually under the
> impression that I wouldn't have been able to tell the difference myself,
> apart from the shadows and the places where the particles are intersecting
> with objects. But everyone have very quickly spotted the shortcomings of the
> system... I wonder if I had used a non-moving camera if it would have been
> as easy to tell?
>
> > As others have mentioned already, it looks
> > 3D-Game-esque, not POV-RAY.
>
> Apard from the shadows, I'd like to know how to make the fire and smoke look
> better if anyone have any hints. As i said, I've worked on it for a long
> time and am kind of unable to see if it looks wrong, and why.
>
> > And you post an animation just as I'm about to take the
> > next two non-computer weeks to work through a printed
> > version of my Particle-System
>
> A printed version of your particle system??? I have no idea what you're
> talking about... :)
>
> > and finally get it finished, now that my IRTC-Entry
> > (my first!) has been sent in...
>
> Good luck with both!
>
> > See ya, and I'll just hope you'll post a media-version
> > in a few days (hey, you've got two weeks, then I'll be
> > back!) ;-)
>
> Well, I have reasons not to work on a media version right now. Basically, it
> will delay the release of my system. I just wanted to have *some* kind of
> explosion included in the first version of the package. :)
>
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nice! Reminds me of Mechwarrior 2, only this looks better. Hope you can
figure out the shadow-casting soon. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mark James Lewin" <m_j### [at] yahoocomau> wrote in message
news:3C6AE427.A8FF1A57@yahoo.com.au...
> ...
> My guess is 1.5 - 2 hrs. It really depends on how many particles you have,
and
> whether you are using media or not. I suspect this is not media (discs
perhaps?)
> just because, if you make Al chew gum whilst walking, you would surely
make
> absorbing smoke which would leave a shadow :-)
I suppose your next trick, Rune, will be Al walking along, chewing a fat
smoking joke exploding-cigar...
Mark Hanford
http://www.mrhanford.com/povray
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I wonder if I had used a non-moving camera if it would have been
> as easy to tell?
>
Probably not, but as someone mentioned already, exact copies of the
same texture are pretty well recognizable...
> Apard from the shadows, I'd like to know how to make the fire and smoke look
> better if anyone have any hints. As i said, I've worked on it for a long
> time and am kind of unable to see if it looks wrong, and why.
>
One addition would be the rotation of the textures, but that won't work with
discs... If you imagine the great initial fireball as a torus, its easy to
explain:
the inner sides roll outwards and up, the outer sides inward an down...
> A printed version of your particle system??? I have no idea what you're
> talking about... :)
>
I wanted to take my PRINTER and PRINT the PARTICLE SYSTEM to
go it through BY HAND and look at DECLARATIONS and ALGORITHMS
to find optimisation possibilities (putting five sheets of paper with different
sections
aside of each other isn't that easy to be done on a computer)...
Heh, thinking of it, it's like looking at a hard-coded version... ;-)
> Well, I have reasons not to work on a media version right now. Basically, it
> will delay the release of my system. I just wanted to have *some* kind of
> explosion included in the first version of the package. :)
>
Aha. So we're approacing a particle rush? If you post yours, and it gets
popular,
mine won't have a chance... Ah, well.
--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Nikias" wrote:
> as someone mentioned already, exact copies
> of the same texture are pretty well recognizable...
Let me straighten this out. I'm *not* using exact copies of the textures!
I'm not sure where you get the exact copies from that you seem to spot in
the animation... ;)
And no, they're not image_maps but procuderal textures.
> One addition would be the rotation of the textures, but
> that won't work with discs... If you imagine the great
> initial fireball as a torus, its easy to explain:
> the inner sides roll outwards and up, the outer sides
> inward an down...
I have thought about this myself, but it would be very difficult to
implement as the individual particles don't know if they're on the "inside"
or the "outside".
All I could do would be to apply some random rotation to each particle, but
I'm sure that wouldn't look very good.
> I wanted to take my PRINTER and PRINT the PARTICLE SYSTEM
> to go it through BY HAND and look at DECLARATIONS and
> ALGORITHMS to find optimisation possibilities
Oh so you mean the *code* of your particle system! Why didn't you just say
that. ;)
The term "particle system" covers IMO everything including the concept, the
theories involved, the demo scenes, the code, the documentation, the
resulting images and animations, etc., so I was confused when you talked
about printing out "your particle system".
BTW, I'd never be able to work with code in printed form...
> Aha. So we're approacing a particle rush?
Not a rush, I've just decided not to implement too many new things and
consentrate on getting the first version ready for release instead.
> If you post yours, and it gets popular, mine won't
> have a chance... Ah, well.
Well, I for one would probably use it if it's flexible enough. Does it allow
me to get access to a particular particle's location at any time? For
example I'd like to know particle X's location at clock=0.6 even though the
clock of the scene is currently only at 0.3. That's not possible with my
system but I imagine it could be possible with yours because of the way it
works.
You see, if that's possible, i could use each particle in your system as an
emitter in my own system and that way get some truely interesting effects.
:D
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mark Hanford" wrote:
> I suppose your next trick, Rune, will be Al walking along,
> chewing a fat smoking joke exploding-cigar...
Um, no... (he doesn't smoke.)
Actually, I'd rather have AL blown away by a nearby explosion - without
getting seriously hurt of course.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
