 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Blow up! take 2 was posted March 14 this year. I've now made a new
version with several improvements.
First of all I used the new fire and smoke I also used in the latest
Explosion animation. At the same time I also made the fire and flames
much shorter, which many people suggested last time.
I also added debris, which there also was many who suggested. The
question is if the debris looks realistic... Is it the right amount? The
right sizes and colors? The right area it covers?
Finally I added damage to the building, but the hole itself is so small
that it's mostly covered by the smoke. It should be possible to see some
of the soothing though. Should I make more damage?
So, I have done my best to take care of the major things that were
mentioned last time. This time, which changes are most needed to obtain
greater realism? :)
All feedback appreciated as always!
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Apr 14)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'blow_up_3.mpg' (377 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wow, what an improvement!
I'd say some more debris, and actually some flying
debris which are burning and leaving a dark smoke-trail
which dissipates very quickly to a large-volume with only
subtle effect on the image would be a good thing.
Rune wrote:
> Blow up! take 2 was posted March 14 this year. I've now made a new
> version with several improvements.
>
> First of all I used the new fire and smoke I also used in the latest
> Explosion animation. At the same time I also made the fire and flames
> much shorter, which many people suggested last time.
>
> I also added debris, which there also was many who suggested. The
> question is if the debris looks realistic... Is it the right amount? The
> right sizes and colors? The right area it covers?
>
> Finally I added damage to the building, but the hole itself is so small
> that it's mostly covered by the smoke. It should be possible to see some
> of the soothing though. Should I make more damage?
>
> So, I have done my best to take care of the major things that were
> mentioned last time. This time, which changes are most needed to obtain
> greater realism? :)
>
> All feedback appreciated as always!
>
> Rune
> --
> 3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
> Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Apr 14)
> POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
> POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
>
> Name: blow_up_3.mpg
> blow_up_3.mpg Type: WMPLAYER Datei (video/mpg)
> Encoding: x-uuencode
--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmx de
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Nikias wrote:
> Wow, what an improvement!
Yeah, isn't it? :)
The funny things about big improvements is that something that I thought
before was somewhat realistic suddenly look ridiculously fake compared
to the new version. That's always a good sign. :)
> I'd say some more debris
Most of the debris is covered by the explosion in the start and is only
visible near the end of the animation where the dust begins to
disappear. There is actually 120 pieces of debris already, but even more
might be better...
> and actually some flying debris which are burning
> and leaving a dark smoke-trail
Hmm, I don't know. As always, some reference images (from the real
world) would be great. And I never seem to be able to find any myself.
:(
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Apr 14)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3CE90AA8.D0309AF7@gmx.de...
> Wow, what an improvement!
>
> I'd say some more debris, and actually some flying
> debris which are burning and leaving a dark smoke-trail
> which dissipates very quickly to a large-volume with only
> subtle effect on the image would be a good thing.
>
>
Improvement? For a moment there I could have sworn it was news footage (the
shaky-cam adds realism!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Actually, his hands were shaking as he typed the code.
Cheers!
Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Something about it makes me think "cartoon". It doesn't look volumetric.
Feels very flat. Also, it looks a bit chunky with such big spheres, and
little smooth, bloby transitions between them. Dunno, at least that's the
first thing that comes to mind. You have seen the animations by Henrik
Jensen, right? It needs more of that wispy quality.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tony[B] wrote:
> Something about it makes me think "cartoon". It
> doesn't look volumetric. Feels very flat. Also,
> it looks a bit chunky with such big spheres, and
> little smooth, bloby transitions between them.
I don't quite follow you. I can't really see the individual spheres
myself, nor the blobby transitions you mention, and I don't think it
looks very flat.
> Dunno, at least that's the first thing that
> comes to mind. You have seen the animations by
> Henrik Jensen, right? It needs more of that
> wispy quality.
Do you mean the ones on this page:
http://graphics.stanford.edu/~fedkiw/
He has made some impressive smoke animations, but those are completely
out of context. It is definitely not the smoke of explosions, and the
smoke is of a much smaller scale than the smoke in my animation. Since
the smoke he simulates and the smoke I simulate are of entirely
different kinds, I find myself unable to really do any comparisons
between them.
It would be very helpful if you could show me a reference image or video
clip of a real explosion to point out which things I need to change. :)
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Apr 14)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Data wrote:
> Improvement? For a moment there I could have sworn
> it was news footage (the shaky-cam adds realism!)
Hehe! ;)
Bu the shaky-cam was also there in the previous versions...
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated May 20)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Rune,
Very nice indeed! I noticed some cube-shapes in the
explosion that you might want to change. See attached.
Those might be there from the mpeg compression, I'm
not sure.
=Bob=
"Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote in message news:3ce9092e@news.povray.org...
[deleted]
: So, I have done my best to take care of the major things that were
: mentioned last time. This time, which changes are most needed to obtain
: greater realism? :)
: All feedback appreciated as always!
: Rune
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'Squares.jpg' (28 KB)
Preview of image 'Squares.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
=Bob= wrote:
> Very nice indeed!
Thank you! :)
> I noticed some cube-shapes in the explosion
> that you might want to change. See attached.
> Those might be there from the mpeg compression,
> I'm not sure.
Yeah, it's the mpeg compression. But in this animation the compression
artifacts are a good thing because it hides the details and lack
thereof. ;)
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated May 20)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
