 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I wonder how many will bother to have a look at this one, knowing that the
first two were so similar...
But I think this one is a greater improvement than version 2 was. I have
made the smoke darker and made it last longer, I have made the column wider
in the start, and I've added dust near the ground, which I think is a nice
touch (well, it's more than just a "touch" with the amount I added).
Now I can see how the first version looked video-game-like, but I couldn't
tell back then... :)
One things I've wondered about is if the explosion is too big compared to
the building. Should I make it slightly smaller?
I've decided not to go with the debris after all, as it will make the
animation too advanced for a demo scene. I've made a big hole in the
building though, but that's not very easy to see.
Comments much appreciated!
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
Attachments:
Download 'explode3.mpg' (423 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I wonder how many will bother to have a look at this one, knowing that the
> first two were so similar...
Me! :o) I'm impressed. Actually I thought about explosions in Pov too just
a few days ago ... and here you're working on it... Good you didn't have to
start from scratch as I would have needed... Well, I haven't read all the
comments so far but I'd like to say 2 things: Third version is the best. For
further improvement, the fire shouldn't immediately go up in the air, as it
does now. First comes the explosion and then the fire / smoke, with a short
delay. It moves up too steadily at the moment.
A third thing to mention: How would it look if the camera doesn't move? I
like the circlulation of the smoke but it's caused by the camera only..
That's enough for now.. I'm looking forward to anim 4.
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wow! That's awesome!!
It looks so solid, just like real explosions. The column of fire/smoke after the
main explosion is loads better than the earlier ones. And the main explosion is
just amazing.
What's the render time like?
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Rune <run### [at] mobilixnet dk> wrote in message
news:3c6d4c7a@news.povray.org...
> I wonder how many will bother to have a look at this one, knowing that the
> first two were so similar...
>
> But I think this one is a greater improvement than version 2 was. I have
> made the smoke darker and made it last longer, I have made the column wider
> in the start, and I've added dust near the ground, which I think is a nice
> touch (well, it's more than just a "touch" with the amount I added).
>
> Now I can see how the first version looked video-game-like, but I couldn't
> tell back then... :)
>
> One things I've wondered about is if the explosion is too big compared to
> the building. Should I make it slightly smaller?
>
> I've decided not to go with the debris after all, as it will make the
> animation too advanced for a demo scene. I've made a big hole in the
> building though, but that's not very easy to see.
>
> Comments much appreciated!
>
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Hugo" wrote:
> > I wonder how many will bother to have a look
> > at this one, knowing that the first two were so similar...
>
> Me! :o) I'm impressed.
Thanks! :)
> Actually I thought about explosions in Pov too just
> a few days ago ... and here you're working on it...
> Good you didn't have to start from scratch as I would
> have needed...
Well, I had my particle system, but besides that I had to start from
scratch. That doesn't mean though that a particle system is required to
create explosions, it's just one out of many ways, but one I haven't seen
investigated much in POV-Ray.
> Well, I haven't read all the comments so far but I'd
> like to say 2 things: Third version is the best.
I think so too.
> For further improvement, the fire shouldn't immediately
> go up in the air, as it does now.
I'm not sure I agree with that but again it comes down to reference
material. I'm always interested in good reference animations, though file
sizes shouldn't be too big...
> A third thing to mention: How would it look if the camera
> doesn't move? I like the circlulation of the smoke but it's
> caused by the camera only.
I'm not sure what you mean. The smoke itself doesn't rotate, only the camera
rotates around the smoke. However, I think sometimes myself that it looks
like the smoke rotates. I think it's related to the fact that I'm using a
texture trick instead of real media. Each fire ball is mapped onto a sphere
with a slightly larger radius than the apparent radius of the fireball, thus
the depth is actually too big.
> That's enough for now.. I'm looking forward to anim 4.
Actually I think this one was the final one. (But of course you never
know...)
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" wrote:
> Wow! That's awesome!!
I'm very glad you think this version is better than the previous! :)
> What's the render time like?
About half an hour for the entire animation on a 1 GHz machine.
What would it have been using media instead. 5 times as long? 10 times as
long? ...
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > For further improvement, the fire shouldn't immediately
> > go up in the air, as it does now.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with that but again it comes down to reference
> material. I'm always interested in good reference animations, though file
> sizes shouldn't be too big...
Well, I don't think I have proper material around, but I was referring to
the stiff movement in the Y direction. There's no acceleration, it just
"turns on" at the moment it explodes, which looks computer generated.
> > A third thing to mention: How would it look if the camera
> > doesn't move? I like the circlulation of the smoke but it's
> > caused by the camera only.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. The smoke itself doesn't rotate, only the
camera
> rotates around the smoke.
Yeah .. ehm, I know the smoke doesn't rotate.. Only the camera does.. I was
interested in knowing if the whole thing would look worse, if the camera
didn't move.. In other words, if you added the movement to enhance the look
(would be a bad trick). ;o) And I think about, that maybe it wouldn't hurt
if the smoke itself rotated a bit.. I'm not sure that's realistic though,
but it seems to add "life" to the fire/smoke.
Regards
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cool!
But shouldn't there be a mushroom-like cloud formation? The outside of the
smoke column cools down faster and has more air friction than the inner
side.
Maybe the info at
http://www-imagis.imag.fr/Membres/Fabrice.Neyret/clouds/index-eng.html can
be of any help.
Keep up the good work.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
better and better - don't know about the smoke that falls away tho
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Apache" wrote:
> Cool!
Thanks!
> But shouldn't there be a mushroom-like cloud formation?
> The outside of the smoke column cools down faster and
> has more air friction than the inner side.
Yes, but my system can't simulate such things as temperature and air flows
so I'm afraid there's a limit to the physical accurancy that I can obtain.
> Maybe the info at
> http://www-imagis.imag.fr/Membres/Fabrice.Neyret/clouds/index-eng.html
> can be of any help.
Thanks, I'll have a look.
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Feb 16)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick [Kitty5]" wrote:
> better and better - don't know about the smoke
> that falls away tho
Do you mean that on the ground that doesn't rise in the air? It's supposed
to simulate dust and particles from the building actually, which unlike the
fire and smoke would slowly fall to the ground.
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Feb 16)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
