 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote:
>
> That was my first thought...but look at the planet this moon is
> orbiting: a gas giant, certainly not Earth. Maybe this moon does have an
> atmosphere.
>
But then the sky should not be totally black (at least some color near the
horizon if it's only a thin atmosphere).
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <39B0E94F.E3A85D6A@schunter.etc.tu-bs.de>,
chr### [at] gmxde wrote:
> But then the sky should not be totally black (at least some color near the
> horizon if it's only a thin atmosphere).
Not at night. :-)
Or even at daytime, if the atmosphere is thin, sunlight is dim, and the
planetoid is small. The atmospheric scattering may only be visible when
looking nearly directly at the sun or other light source.
And besides, maybe a spacecraft just landed and the dust is still
settling, and that is what causes the halos.
Anyway, I would like to know how the glow effect was done...emitting
media spheres? Or scattering media? Or has someone else added Marcos
Fajardo's glowing light sources patch to a newer version of POV?
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hmmm, the domes, look, well, to much like perfect domes..
try adding a normal to them to make them look at little less perfect
Rick
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31 Aug 2000 20:25:44 -0500, Pete wrote:
>If your are able to read this, your reader is not MIME compliant.
>Use Metamail or a MIME aware reader to view the message properly.
If I need someone to tell me what software I should be using I'll
let you know.
>--p4TteRSuKXBIgGr8gRiNDIkkZAlLD3I
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>
> This is a picture I did not too long ago, exploring the
>possibilities of povray macros (ex, for tiling of the dome, for
>making towers). This is the only picture where I've even
>gotten a heightfield to look good.
This looks gook, reminds me of Frontier Elite II.
--
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
10:03pm up 12 days, 2:21, 2 users, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob wrote:
>Pretty neat. However, a glow around the lights with no atmosphere? Plus
You're totally right. I *never* thought about that. I just
added the glow because it looked neat.
>they are washed out looking. And maybe the shadows should have been nearly
>black. Or is that a misconception?
If you mean dim when you say "Washed out", then I'll agree. I
really have difficulty with media to work ( BTW I use standard povray,
as I port my pov code between Amiga & Windows versions).
>The moon surface looks good, and I like the planet. Some interaction
>between ground and domes might make them seem less separated.
>Bob
Thanks!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph wrote ...
>The dome tiling looks good, but i don't really like the red planet's color.
Thanks: the dome tiling is a macro.
Red is a difficult color to work with. Hmm ... maybe
blue ... that always looks good.
>BTW, what program did you use to generate the heightfield ?
Standard Official Povray 3.1, outputting a 24-bit TGA
containing 16-bit data. I use the spherical pigment with
a color map (clear to white to clear) to make the rim of the
crater. That looks way too regular, so under that pigment I
have a bozo pigment. The interaction of the two layers is
like the photoshop "multiply" mode. (in other words, the
sphere pigment masks out the bozo into a crater shape)
Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris huff wrote ...
>In article <39B0E94F.E3A85D6A@schunter.etc.tu-bs.de>,
>chr### [at] gmxde wrote:
>> But then the sky should not be totally black (at least some color near the
>> horizon if it's only a thin atmosphere).
>Not at night. :-)
>Or even at daytime, if the atmosphere is thin, sunlight is dim, and the
>planetoid is small. The atmospheric scattering may only be visible when
>looking nearly directly at the sun or other light source.
>And besides, maybe a spacecraft just landed and the dust is still
>settling, and that is what causes the halos.
Dust, errr, um, yeah, that's it. :-)
Seriously, I'de intended an airless moon, but I hadn't
realized that the glow around the lights would be impossible
in a vacuum. My mistake.
>Anyway, I would like to know how the glow effect was done...emitting
>media spheres? Or scattering media? Or has someone else added Marcos
>Fajardo's glowing light sources patch to a newer version of POV?
I think too many people jump to the "it must be a patched
version of pov" conclusion when they look at a render. I don't mess
around with unofficial unsupported nonstandard hacks of povray. The
glow is just an emitting media on a clear (hollow) sphere, in
regular PovRay 3.1.
Pete
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rick wrote ...
>hmmm, the domes, look, well, to much like perfect domes..
Heheh. The constant dilema of the ratracer ...
make it mathematically perfect because you can, or add some
disorder/imperfection to make it "realistic".
>try adding a normal to them to make them look at little less perfect
What I'de really like to do is find/write a good
hull plate macro (the look you see in all ships in the first
star wars movie, the one later retitled as "episode four").
Pete
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Actually, according to the prologue, the first Star Wars movie has always
been titled "Episode IV: A New Hope." So really it was never retitled. :)
--
Paul Vanukoff
"Pete" <Pet### [at] nymaliasnet> wrote in message
news:495### [at] nymaliasnet...
> What I'de really like to do is find/write a good
> hull plate macro (the look you see in all ships in the first
> star wars movie, the one later retitled as "episode four").
>
>
> Pete
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Paul Vanukoff wrote:
> Actually, according to the prologue, the first Star Wars movie has always
> been titled "Episode IV: A New Hope." So really it was never retitled. :)
Yup, 'cuz they're based off a book series. AFAIK it goes up to nine...
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
