 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kedar Patil wrote:
> I once tried doing fire using particle systems in
> OpenGL and I must admit that your version looks a
> lot better than mine.
I don't think OpenGL and POV-Ray can be compared very well when it comes
to rendering quality. Can OpenGL even simulate volumetric effects
similar to media? Or how did you render the fire? Textured polygons
facing the camera?
> Polish the code and release it ASAP. I am getting
> impatient to try it :)
I'll do my best. :)
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision: http://runevision.com (updated Sep 8)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've uploaded a new version of the fire to my web site. There are no
significant improvements, the light source is just not quite as white. I
also had to change the way that the media for the fire works, and I hope
it doesn't degrade the look of the fire.
http://runevision.com/3d/anims/
The reason I had to change it is that I discovered that the nice-looking
fire was caused by a too low amount of media samples. With increased
samples, the fire began to look very bland and boring. So I had to come
up with a different method that would look good both when few and many
samples are used.
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision: http://runevision.com (updated Sep 8)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in article 3d7a641d@news.povray.org, Run### [at] rune johansen@mobilixnet.dk
wrote on 7/9/02 9:37 pm:
> More than one year ago I attempted to create a nice camp fire using my
> particle system. The result was not too bad, but not very good either I
> think.
>
> Now I've tried again to make that camp fire, and the result is better
> this time I think. The animation is attached here. As I see it, it has
> more of that fire-like quality, which made me come up with the subject
> line.
I have seen you previous one and I think this one is a good improvement.
> But as always, working on a project for a while makes you somewhat
> blind, and thus, other people are best at spotting the possible flaws
> and errors there are. So please comment. :)
>
> By the way, I haven't been working on the particle system for some
> months, but now I'm on it again, and I think it can be released within a
> few months.
That should be cool.
Fidel.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "Rune" wrote:
> I don't think OpenGL and POV-Ray can be compared very well when
> it comes to rendering quality. Can OpenGL even simulate
> volumetric effects similar to media?
I agree with you. OpenGL has a polygons-and-textures type of
rendering engine.
I think I should have expressed myself more clearly. I
wasn't comparing the rendering quality, but the behaviour of the
fire as a particle system. What I had done was a kind of quick
hack to learn OpenGL and C++. Your system seems to be more
"real" -- most probably it is based on more accurate physics
than what I used.
> Or how did you render the fire? Textured polygons facing the
> camera?
Yes, that's what I used :) The rendering quality was not that
bad. But, as you said, OpenGL is not to be compared with
POV-Ray.
-Kedar
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
