 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Andy
That makes sense, and particularly if it's bundled with the next
or even the current official distribution of POV.
Steve
Andrew Cocker wrote:
>
> I'd like to see all these tree and grass macros in one "vegetation.inc"
>
> --
> ----------------------
> Andy
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> --The Home Of Lunaland--
> --visit my POV-Ray gallery--
> --listen to my music--
> www.acocker.freeserve.co.uk
>
> Lewis <ble### [at] netvision netil> wrote in message
> news:37163924.6C8A93DD@netvision.net.il...
> > I had another weird idea:
> > Let's compile a library of trees, made with Giles macro. Using a macro
> > to generate random trees, each one starts it with a different seed and
> > sends in the results (the include files). It could be very useful. Maybe
> > someone will need a couple of trees sometime. Instead of parsing, say,
> > 100ds of them, he will just download them.
> > Anyone with me? If there will be enough enthusiasm I'll set up a web
> > site or somethin'.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steve <sjl### [at] ndirectcouk> wrote in message news:37167060.9D062CFD@ndirect.co.uk...
> Andy
>
> That makes sense, and particularly if it's bundled with the next
> or even the current official distribution of POV.
>
> Steve
Agreed. Someone mentioned recently that POV should be bundled with Colefax's includes
for
example. They're all tiny files, and would save a lot of searching for the newcomer.
In my
case, I had no idea that the lens flare includes were available until recently, and
since
then I have put his AutoClck.mcr file to much use.
Where are you Steve?
--
----------------------
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
--The Home Of Lunaland--
--visit my POV-Ray gallery--
--listen to my music--
www.acocker.freeserve.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
povray.binaries.utilities
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, this isn't what I thought it was going to be after all.
I've only messed with Sonya Roberts plant includes before. I've been
meaning to get back to some trees. Good luck with this idea, and yeah,
who *doesn't* think a lot of the wellknown and useful includes, macros,
etc, shouldn't be included. No one probably, so it must be a secret
password needed to add to the "official" distribution eh? :)
Lewis wrote:
>
> I had another weird idea:
> Let's compile a library of trees, made with Giles macro. Using a macro
> to generate random trees, each one starts it with a different seed and
> sends in the results (the include files). It could be very useful. Maybe
> someone will need a couple of trees sometime. Instead of parsing, say,
> 100ds of them, he will just download them.
> Anyone with me? If there will be enough enthusiasm I'll set up a web
> site or somethin'.
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob Hughes wrote:
>
> Well, this isn't what I thought it was going to be after all.
> I've only messed with Sonya Roberts plant includes before. I've been
> meaning to get back to some trees. Good luck with this idea, and yeah,
> who *doesn't* think a lot of the wellknown and useful includes, macros,
> etc, shouldn't be included. No one probably, so it must be a secret
> password needed to add to the "official" distribution eh? :)
Don't even get me started...
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hmm, this probably doesn't fit in this group, but should be in a separate mail
to Giles. but then, hehe.
To ease it all up with object placing and scalability, can you make the trees
all downscaled(upscaled) to a bounding_box{<0,0,0>,<10,10,10>}. This would help
a lot, and would also remove the need to recalculate the tree to fit.
I have an automated rescaler #macro here somewhere, if you are interested...
Lewis wrote:
>
> I had another weird idea:
> Let's compile a library of trees, made with Giles macro. Using a macro
> to generate random trees, each one starts it with a different seed and
> sends in the results (the include files). It could be very useful. Maybe
> someone will need a couple of trees sometime. Instead of parsing, say,
> 100ds of them, he will just download them.
> Anyone with me? If there will be enough enthusiasm I'll set up a web
> site or somethin'.
--
//Spider
[ spi### [at] bahnhofse ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
What I can do and what I could do, I just don't know anymore
"Marian"
By: "Sisters Of Mercy"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmm. It could be useful in some cases, and a little cumbersome in others.
Personnally I prefer having the trees not scaled and adjust the size using the
dummy bounding box: for instance, if you generate several trees just but changing
the random seed or the recursion level, you'll get trees of different sizes but
with a similar scale. If the trees were post-scaled, you'd get even-sized trees but
with actually different scales, so you would have to make trial-and-error scaling
to have trees consistent with each other. There's also the fact that the trees
don't exactly fit in a box. Some of them crawl, some shoot up, so there's no ideal
unit-size bounding box. In fact people who provide really good 3D trees also
provide the "real life" bounding box : see http://iris8.cirad.fr/index.htm and look
at the plant catalogue.
Now if you really want it, I can add it as an option.
Gilles
Spider wrote:
> hmm, this probably doesn't fit in this group, but should be in a separate mail
> to Giles. but then, hehe.
>
> To ease it all up with object placing and scalability, can you make the trees
> all downscaled(upscaled) to a bounding_box{<0,0,0>,<10,10,10>}. This would help
> a lot, and would also remove the need to recalculate the tree to fit.
>
> I have an automated rescaler #macro here somewhere, if you are interested...
>
> Lewis wrote:
> >
> > I had another weird idea:
> > Let's compile a library of trees, made with Giles macro. Using a macro
> > to generate random trees, each one starts it with a different seed and
> > sends in the results (the include files). It could be very useful. Maybe
> > someone will need a couple of trees sometime. Instead of parsing, say,
> > 100ds of them, he will just download them.
> > Anyone with me? If there will be enough enthusiasm I'll set up a web
> > site or somethin'.
>
> --
> //Spider
> [ spi### [at] bahnhofse ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
> What I can do and what I could do, I just don't know anymore
> "Marian"
> By: "Sisters Of Mercy"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sorry to disagree again, but no, It can be done with a good uniform scaling of
the object so it keeps the curent scale of the objects. This should be quite
easy to implement.
something like this is in my mind..
translate -1*MinExtent
//that should center the object with one corner on <0,0,0>
Then there should be a scaling, something like:
scale 1/(MaxExtent-MinExtent)
...
in my mind the tree will keep it's scale in sizes, but be downscaled to fit...
perhaps I'm to tired to think straight, but then, what good is straight?
(Go chaos, go)
Gilles Tran wrote:
>
> Hmm. It could be useful in some cases, and a little cumbersome in others.
> Personnally I prefer having the trees not scaled and adjust the size using the
> dummy bounding box: for instance, if you generate several trees just but changing
> the random seed or the recursion level, you'll get trees of different sizes but
> with a similar scale. If the trees were post-scaled, you'd get even-sized trees but
> with actually different scales, so you would have to make trial-and-error scaling
> to have trees consistent with each other. There's also the fact that the trees
> don't exactly fit in a box. Some of them crawl, some shoot up, so there's no ideal
> unit-size bounding box. In fact people who provide really good 3D trees also
> provide the "real life" bounding box : see http://iris8.cirad.fr/index.htm and look
> at the plant catalogue.
> Now if you really want it, I can add it as an option.
> Gilles
>
> Spider wrote:
>
> > hmm, this probably doesn't fit in this group, but should be in a separate mail
> > to Giles. but then, hehe.
> >
> > To ease it all up with object placing and scalability, can you make the trees
> > all downscaled(upscaled) to a bounding_box{<0,0,0>,<10,10,10>}. This would help
> > a lot, and would also remove the need to recalculate the tree to fit.
> >
> > I have an automated rescaler #macro here somewhere, if you are interested...
> >
> > Lewis wrote:
> > >
> > > I had another weird idea:
> > > Let's compile a library of trees, made with Giles macro. Using a macro
> > > to generate random trees, each one starts it with a different seed and
> > > sends in the results (the include files). It could be very useful. Maybe
> > > someone will need a couple of trees sometime. Instead of parsing, say,
> > > 100ds of them, he will just download them.
> > > Anyone with me? If there will be enough enthusiasm I'll set up a web
> > > site or somethin'.
> >
> > --
> > //Spider
> > [ spi### [at] bahnhofse ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
> > What I can do and what I could do, I just don't know anymore
> > "Marian"
> > By: "Sisters Of Mercy"
--
//Spider
[ spi### [at] bahnhofse ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
What I can do and what I could do, I just don't know anymore
"Marian"
By: "Sisters Of Mercy"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Speaking for Gilles (I must be mad these clothes are too big for me, they
don't fit, and I can't find a good scaling macro...)
Well, I really don't believe Gilles doesn't know how to scale a tree, but he
says that you can have the need for two trees of different heigh but with
the same leaves, if they are both scaled down to the unit box, you'll spend
you life trying to find the good scaling factor to get them having the same
leaves (same problem with the texture... ) the different trees *needs* to be
consistent, the don't need to be the same size)
Philippe
>
>Sorry to disagree again, but no, It can be done with a good uniform scaling
of
>the object so it keeps the curent scale of the objects. This should be
quite
>easy to implement.
>something like this is in my mind..
>
>translate -1*MinExtent
>//that should center the object with one corner on <0,0,0>
>
>Then there should be a scaling, something like:
>scale 1/(MaxExtent-MinExtent)
>...
>in my mind the tree will keep it's scale in sizes, but be downscaled to
fit...
>perhaps I'm to tired to think straight, but then, what good is straight?
>(Go chaos, go)
>
>
>
>Gilles Tran wrote:
>>
>> Hmm. It could be useful in some cases, and a little cumbersome in others.
>> Personnally I prefer having the trees not scaled and adjust the size
using the
>> dummy bounding box: for instance, if you generate several trees just but
changing
>> the random seed or the recursion level, you'll get trees of different
sizes but
>> with a similar scale. If the trees were post-scaled, you'd get even-sized
trees but
>> with actually different scales, so you would have to make trial-and-error
scaling
>> to have trees consistent with each other. There's also the fact that the
trees
>> don't exactly fit in a box. Some of them crawl, some shoot up, so there's
no ideal
>> unit-size bounding box. In fact people who provide really good 3D trees
also
>> provide the "real life" bounding box : see
http://iris8.cirad.fr/index.htm and look
>> at the plant catalogue.
>> Now if you really want it, I can add it as an option.
>> Gilles
>>
>> Spider wrote:
>>
>> > hmm, this probably doesn't fit in this group, but should be in a
separate mail
>> > to Giles. but then, hehe.
>> >
>> > To ease it all up with object placing and scalability, can you make the
trees
>> > all downscaled(upscaled) to a bounding_box{<0,0,0>,<10,10,10>}. This
would help
>> > a lot, and would also remove the need to recalculate the tree to fit.
>> >
>> > I have an automated rescaler #macro here somewhere, if you are
interested...
>> >
>> > Lewis wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I had another weird idea:
>> > > Let's compile a library of trees, made with Giles macro. Using a
macro
>> > > to generate random trees, each one starts it with a different seed
and
>> > > sends in the results (the include files). It could be very useful.
Maybe
>> > > someone will need a couple of trees sometime. Instead of parsing,
say,
>> > > 100ds of them, he will just download them.
>> > > Anyone with me? If there will be enough enthusiasm I'll set up a web
>> > > site or somethin'.
>> >
>> > --
>> > //Spider
>> > [ spi### [at] bahnhofse ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
>> > What I can do and what I could do, I just don't know anymore
>> > "Marian"
>> > By: "Sisters Of Mercy"
>
>--
>//Spider
> [ spi### [at] bahnhofse ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
>What I can do and what I could do, I just don't know anymore
> "Marian"
> By: "Sisters Of Mercy"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ok, then I understand :-)
I must say I was a bit slow when reading Gilles mail.(A bit, I had a pice
of
coded that by "acccident" looped n^3*6 times while parse instead of n^3..
.)
*humming*
I must say that I didn't get the referring until you explained. I'm _real
ly_
slow.. *duh*
Ph Gibone wrote:
>
> Speaking for Gilles (I must be mad these clothes are too big for me, th
ey
> don't fit, and I can't find a good scaling macro...)
>
> Well, I really don't believe Gilles doesn't know how to scale a tree, b
ut he
> says that you can have the need for two trees of different heigh but wi
th
> the same leaves, if they are both scaled down to the unit box, you'll s
pend
> you life trying to find the good scaling factor to get them having the
same
> leaves (same problem with the texture... ) the different trees *needs*
to be
> consistent, the don't need to be the same size)
>
> Philippe
>
> >
> >Sorry to disagree again, but no, It can be done with a good uniform sc
aling
> of
> >the object so it keeps the curent scale of the objects. This should be
> quite
> >easy to implement.
> >something like this is in my mind..
> >
> >translate -1*MinExtent
> >//that should center the object with one corner on <0,0,0>
> >
> >Then there should be a scaling, something like:
> >scale 1/(MaxExtent-MinExtent)
> >...
> >in my mind the tree will keep it's scale in sizes, but be downscaled t
o
> fit...
> >perhaps I'm to tired to think straight, but then, what good is straigh
t?
> >(Go chaos, go)
> >
> >
> >
> >Gilles Tran wrote:
> >>
> >> Hmm. It could be useful in some cases, and a little cumbersome in ot
hers.
> >> Personnally I prefer having the trees not scaled and adjust the size
> using the
> >> dummy bounding box: for instance, if you generate several trees just
but
> changing
> >> the random seed or the recursion level, you'll get trees of differen
t
> sizes but
> >> with a similar scale. If the trees were post-scaled, you'd get even-
sized
> trees but
> >> with actually different scales, so you would have to make trial-and-
error
> scaling
> >> to have trees consistent with each other. There's also the fact that
the
> trees
> >> don't exactly fit in a box. Some of them crawl, some shoot up, so th
ere's
> no ideal
> >> unit-size bounding box. In fact people who provide really good 3D tr
ees
> also
> >> provide the "real life" bounding box : see
> http://iris8.cirad.fr/index.htm and look
> >> at the plant catalogue.
> >> Now if you really want it, I can add it as an option.
> >> Gilles
> >>
> >> Spider wrote:
> >>
> >> > hmm, this probably doesn't fit in this group, but should be in a
> separate mail
> >> > to Giles. but then, hehe.
> >> >
> >> > To ease it all up with object placing and scalability, can you mak
e the
> trees
> >> > all downscaled(upscaled) to a bounding_box{<0,0,0>,<10,10,10>}. Th
is
> would help
> >> > a lot, and would also remove the need to recalculate the tree to f
it.
> >> >
> >> > I have an automated rescaler #macro here somewhere, if you are
> interested...
> >> >
> >> > Lewis wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > I had another weird idea:
> >> > > Let's compile a library of trees, made with Giles macro. Using a
> macro
> >> > > to generate random trees, each one starts it with a different se
ed
> and
> >> > > sends in the results (the include files). It could be very usefu
l.
> Maybe
> >> > > someone will need a couple of trees sometime. Instead of parsing
,
> say,
> >> > > 100ds of them, he will just download them.
> >> > > Anyone with me? If there will be enough enthusiasm I'll set up a
web
> >> > > site or somethin'.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > //Spider
> >> > [ spi### [at] bahnhofse ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
> >> > What I can do and what I could do, I just don't know anymore
> >> > "Marian"
> >> > By: "Sisters Of Mercy"
> >
> >--
> >//Spider
> > [ spi### [at] bahnhofse ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
> >What I can do and what I could do, I just don't know anymore
> > "Marian"
> > By: "Sisters Of Mercy"
--
//Spider
[ spi### [at] bahnhofse ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
What I can do and what I could do, I just don't know anymore
"Marian"
By: "Sisters Of Mercy"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
