 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is the first test of an idea for the Force Of Nature round of the IRTC.
This is a meteor's view of it hitting a planet. There's a couple of obvious
bugs: it flies through a couple of hills, and you can see the level of detail
change from a smooth surface to an isosurface. There's also something really
wierd at the start of the animation, where it looks like the planet appears
through an imaginary plane. I've modelled everything to a scale of 1 pov unit =
1 metre, the planet has a radius of 6,000,000 units, so maybe it's just hitting
the limit of POV's accuracy.
What do you think? Any comments, suggestions, etc.?
On a different note, does anyone know how I can tell if an mpeg is in mpeg-1
format? I have a bunch of codecs here but I don't know if any of them do mpeg-1,
and it's kind of important for entering the irtc! I have cmpeg, which I'll use
if I get stuck, but I used Bmp2Avi to make this anim and it's a lot easier.
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'meteor1.mpg.dat' (617 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, Greg couldn't see it... But regarding your question about the mpg
format, it's easy (assuming people deliberately didn't put a wrong file
extension on their file; Windows Media Player will recognise the correct
format anyway.)
A file extension of MPG means mpeg1, always.. MP2 is the DVD format.. Mpeg4
is always seen as AVI, QT or in recent cases, it even has the DivX file
extension.. Usually it's AVI though.. AVI is a common file wrapper, but
never used in mpeg1.
Cmpeg is getting old.. Use Tmpgenc instead.. It's considered the best
encoder for Mpeg1 and is free as well.
www.tmpgenc.com
> you can see the level of detail change from a smooth
> surface to an isosurface
Very nice anim. I didn't notice the change. But a real meteor would hit more
directly, down straight.. And not fly like it had wings.. I think? :o)
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Perhaps., as the meteor enters the atmosphere, you should have a glow coming
from (behind?) the camera, as the meteor would be burning up.
-tgq
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Why is the camera in/on the meteor? Wouldn't it be better from a different
observation point?
Also, at the angle selected, there would be no impact. The meteor would
probably bounce off the atmosphere and back into space. You need a steeper
angle of descent.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbrain com> wrote in message
news:3d580c77@news.povray.org...
> which I'll use if I get stuck, but I used Bmp2Avi
> to make this anim and it's a lot easier.
>
I got MainActor over the internet for $89. It's both visually intuitive and
allows one to tinker under the hood for all sorts of codecs.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tek wrote:
>This is the first test of an idea for the Force Of Nature round of the IRTC.
>This is a meteor's view of it hitting a planet. There's a couple of obvious
>bugs: it flies through a couple of hills, and you can see the level of detail
>change from a smooth surface to an isosurface. There's also something really
>wierd at the start of the animation, where it looks like the planet appears
>through an imaginary plane. I've modelled everything to a scale of 1 pov unit =
>1 metre, the planet has a radius of 6,000,000 units, so maybe it's just hitting
>the limit of POV's accuracy.
>
>What do you think? Any comments, suggestions, etc.?
I agree with the other comments, but it would be interesting if you can see
the result from orbit. Also, it might be better to slow the metor down so
we could see some nice land detail.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well both those points can be explained by the fact that this is a -very- early
wip :)
The camera is "in" the meteor, because when I rendered that I had no meteor for
the camera to look at. I plan to have the camera following the meteor from just
behind, even though that's a very unrealistic camera angle, because I love the
view we get of the planet during the descent. I'm now working on some nice
re-entry effects which I'll post the results of sometime.
Also the "angle selected" could better be described as a very simple curve. I've
really not done anything clever with the motion, I just picked something that
looked vaguely okay. I'm going to try to write a simple bit of physics to work
out how the meteor should move, then I'll base the animation on that.
Thanks for your comments.
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Jim Kress <nos### [at] kressworkscom> wrote in message
news:3d5863a9@news.povray.org...
> Why is the camera in/on the meteor? Wouldn't it be better from a different
> observation point?
>
> Also, at the angle selected, there would be no impact. The meteor would
> probably bounce off the atmosphere and back into space. You need a steeper
> angle of descent.
>
> Jim
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
At the moment the meteor's "speed" is just determined by how many frames I
render. I wanted to make it go slower, but it took 20 hours just to render this,
and I can't afford to spend that long just to render a WIP :)
Maybe next time I'll compress it at a lower frame rate.
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
=RAY= <ray### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:web.3d5930b060a0b574264908380@news.povray.org...
> Tek wrote:
> >This is the first test of an idea for the Force Of Nature round of the IRTC.
> >This is a meteor's view of it hitting a planet. There's a couple of obvious
> >bugs: it flies through a couple of hills, and you can see the level of detail
> >change from a smooth surface to an isosurface. There's also something really
> >wierd at the start of the animation, where it looks like the planet appears
> >through an imaginary plane. I've modelled everything to a scale of 1 pov unit
=
> >1 metre, the planet has a radius of 6,000,000 units, so maybe it's just
hitting
> >the limit of POV's accuracy.
> >
> >What do you think? Any comments, suggestions, etc.?
> I agree with the other comments, but it would be interesting if you can see
> the result from orbit. Also, it might be better to slow the metor down so
> we could see some nice land detail.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tek wrote:
>This is the first test of an idea for the Force Of Nature round of the IRTC.
>This is a meteor's view of it hitting a planet. There's a couple of obvious
>bugs: it flies through a couple of hills, and you can see the level of detail
>change from a smooth surface to an isosurface. There's also something really
>wierd at the start of the animation, where it looks like the planet appears
>through an imaginary plane. I've modelled everything to a scale of 1 pov unit =
>1 metre, the planet has a radius of 6,000,000 units, so maybe it's just hitting
>the limit of POV's accuracy.
>
>What do you think? Any comments, suggestions, etc.?
>
>--
>Tek
>http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
>
I don't think you've reached the limit of POV's accuracy at just 6000 km,
Tek.
At http://www.freecherrypy.org/johnc I use POV to simulate the Earth, Moon
and Sun in order to create animations of solar eclipses.
The radius of the Earth's orbit is 149,600,000 km, and my results don't
suggest any problems with POVray.
Of course the animations are relatively tiny, but I can zoom in to see the
track of the total eclipse in detail -- no problems.
Pavium (aka John Cherry).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"pavium" <joh### [at] engineercom> wrote in message
news:web.3de4594660a0b574a4545d010@news.povray.org...
> Tek wrote:
> >I've modelled everything to a scale of 1 pov unit =
> >1 metre, the planet has a radius of 6,000,000 units, so maybe it's just
hitting
> >the limit of POV's accuracy.
> >
> I don't think you've reached the limit of POV's accuracy at just 6000 km,
> Tek.
>
> At http://www.freecherrypy.org/johnc I use POV to simulate the Earth, Moon
> and Sun in order to create animations of solar eclipses.
>
> The radius of the Earth's orbit is 149,600,000 km, and my results don't
> suggest any problems with POVray.
>
> Of course the animations are relatively tiny, but I can zoom in to see the
> track of the total eclipse in detail -- no problems.
But are you modelling to a scale of 1 pov unit = 1 metre? I managed to fix
the problem using 1 pov unit = 10 metres, and I'd guess that you've got 1
pov unit = 1km, so you should run into similar problems when you get up to
around 20,000,000 km.
It seems that there's a maximum value that pov won't trace beyond.
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
