I think i will stop working on this scene for the moment, here is the last
rendering i made.  I became much too slow for easy modifications, this picture
took about 27 hours to render.  

Some more stats about the picture:

2 objects (isosurface and sky)
Calls to Noise:        6396741740   
Calls to DNoise:       12837190298
Peak memory used:      13429632 bytes (mostly used for radiosity)
isosurface accuracy:   0.003

Including the plants in the same isosurface is really difficult, because they
tend to float in the air not having contact to the ground (you can see it in the
picture at several positions). 

Maybe i can try to make a larger version when i'm going on vacation sometime,
but right now i'm really fed up with waiting days for such a tiny picture to
finish :-)

NTL, comments are still welcome.

Christoph

--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'iso_rock_02.jpg' (71 KB)

Preview of image 'iso_rock_02.jpg'

"Christoph Hormann" <Chr### [at] schunteretctu-bsde> wrote in
message news:39B39571.86743FA9@schunter.etc.tu-bs.de...
|
| I think i will stop working on this scene for the moment, here is the last
| rendering i made.  I became much too slow for easy modifications, this
picture
| took about 27 hours to render.

That does seem an awful long time for this.  Surprised to see the memory
goes that high too.
What are the plants made from?  And I don't think I would have noticed some
were floating unless you had said.
I'd bet it's the distant part which is so slow anyway.  Maybe you could opt
for a different angle, such as from lower down and looking through a
crevasse instead.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

Bob Hughes wrote:
> 
> That does seem an awful long time for this.  Surprised to see the memory
> goes that high too.

Most of the memory is needed for radiosity (without it's less than 1 Mb)

> What are the plants made from?  And I don't think I would have noticed some
> were floating unless you had said.

Some definitely are (just look after the shadows).  They are made from a highly
turbulent quilted pattern.

> I'd bet it's the distant part which is so slow anyway.  Maybe you could opt
> for a different angle, such as from lower down and looking through a
> crevasse instead.
> 

You are right about the distant part, the first lines of the terrain rendered at
about 4-5 seconds per pixel.  A change of the viewpoint could be worth trying
although it would still be quite slow.  

Christoph

--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

Bummer it takes so long.  It looks really good, though.  I guess
an animated fly-thru is out of the question!

--
- Doug Eichenberg
  http://www.getinfo.net/douge
 dou### [at] nlsnet

Post a reply to this message

That's impressive stuff.  The plants don't look bad at all, although maybe
they could be scaled a bit smaller? Anyway maybe that macro that determines
the height at a particular point could be applied to the plants to make
them not float.  (HF_Height_At or something?  I've never used it).  Maybe
it'd just add hours to the render.  Still, it's a shame it takes so long
that it will never be given the full treatment.  I've never seen any
attempt at desert mesas come so close to looking realistic.  Find a friend
with a huge, expensive computer.

Post a reply to this message

CreeD wrote:
> 
> That's impressive stuff.  The plants don't look bad at all, although maybe
> they could be scaled a bit smaller? Anyway maybe that macro that determines
> the height at a particular point could be applied to the plants to make
> them not float.  (HF_Height_At or something?  I've never used it).  Maybe
> it'd just add hours to the render.  Still, it's a shame it takes so long
> that it will never be given the full treatment.  I've never seen any
> attempt at desert mesas come so close to looking realistic.  Find a friend
> with a huge, expensive computer.

Placing the single plants individually would be a solution, but it would need a
lot of memory placing them all the way to the horizon (that would be at least
several thousand objects)

Christoph

--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

Not bad! Not quite "photorealistic", but a cool work of art.

Christoph Hormann wrote:

> I think i will stop working on this scene for the moment, here is the last
> rendering i made.  I became much too slow for easy modifications, this picture
> took about 27 hours to render.

:-(

> Maybe i can try to make a larger version when i'm going on vacation sometime,
> but right now i'm really fed up with waiting days for such a tiny picture to
> finish :-)

lol

--
David Fontaine   <dav### [at] faricynet>   ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" <Chr### [at] schunteretctu-bsde> wrote in
message news:39B3AE73.339F122F@schunter.etc.tu-bs.de...
|
| Bob Hughes wrote:
| >
| > That does seem an awful long time for this.  Surprised to see the memory
| > goes that high too.
|
| Most of the memory is needed for radiosity (without it's less than 1 Mb)

I tend to overlook stats quite a bit so I checked them for myself and I
hadn't realized before that radiosity  uses the memory chips so intensively,
I thought it was primarily a CPU thing.  Guess memory is a part of doing
that now that I think about it.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 14:28:33 +0200, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
>
>I think i will stop working on this scene for the moment, here is the last
>rendering i made.  I became much too slow for easy modifications, this picture
>took about 27 hours to render.  
>
>
>Including the plants in the same isosurface is really difficult, because they
>tend to float in the air not having contact to the ground (you can see it in the
>picture at several positions). 
>
>Maybe i can try to make a larger version when i'm going on vacation sometime,
>but right now i'm really fed up with waiting days for such a tiny picture to
>finish :-)

Wow this is looking good, but it needs some randomness in the shade of green
of the plants, and they do look asthough they're flying away in the wind.

I don't mind doing renders for days on end, so if you want you're welcome
to send me the scene files and I'll render it for you, but it'll take
more than a day or two as I'd have it run in the background along with
all the other stuff that I have running from time to time.  

-- 
Cheers
Steve              email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet

%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps. 

web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/

or  http://start.at/zero-pps

  8:48pm  up 14 days,  1:06,  3 users,  load average: 1.16, 1.10, 1.08

Post a reply to this message

Steve wrote:
> 
> 
> Wow this is looking good, but it needs some randomness in the shade of green
> of the plants, and they do look asthough they're flying away in the wind.
> 

Thanks, as i said, some of them are really flying, they are just a quick try,
coloring is not optimized at all.

> I don't mind doing renders for days on end, so if you want you're welcome
> to send me the scene files and I'll render it for you, but it'll take
> more than a day or two as I'd have it run in the background along with
> all the other stuff that I have running from time to time.
> 

Thanks for the offer, but the problem is not so much the occupation of the
computer but my patience :-)

Christoph

--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message