 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi,
I gave this one hours time and it's all I had to spend on this little
project. I now hand it off to whom so ever wishes to develope it further.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
camera {location<0,1,-18>look_at y*1}
#declare Shroom =
lathe{
quadratic_spline
40,
<0.0000,0.0000>,<0.7501,0.0000>,<0.7500,0.0000>,<0.7908,0.0102>,
<0.8266,0.0408>,<0.8266,0.0918>,<0.7960,0.1530>,<0.7448,0.1938>,
<0.6734,0.1938>,<0.5868,0.1734>,<0.4846,0.1836>,<0.4286,0.1734>,
<0.4030,0.1326>,<0.3520,0.1020>,<0.2756,0.0816>,<0.2244,0.1122>,
<0.1990,0.1734>,<0.1480,0.2756>,<0.1276,0.4286>,<0.1122,0.6836>,
<0.0920,1.0000>,<0.0920,1.1836>,<0.0970,1.2654>,<0.1224,1.1530>,
<0.1428,1.1224>,<0.1990,1.0714>,<0.2756,1.0408>,<0.3776,1.0612>,
<0.4488,1.1020>,<0.5154,1.2040>,<0.5460,1.3674>,<0.5106,1.5200>,
<0.4494,1.5716>,<0.3780,1.6024>,<0.3522,1.6134>,<0.3060,1.6236>,
<0.2644,1.6340>,<0.1480,1.6444>,<0.0714,1.6546>,<0.0102,1.6656>
sturm pigment{rgbt 1} hollow }
object { Shroom
interior {
media {
absorption .5
emission rgb .5
scattering { 3, rgb 4 extinction .10 }
density { granite color_map { [.5 rgb .6][.85 rgb 1] }
scale .5
warp { turbulence .03 lambda 1.4 omega 2.0 octaves 4 }
rotate 0*-y
} // end of density
intervals 35
samples 10, 35
variance 0.001
confidence 0.999
} // end of media
} // end of interior
scale 3
rotate y*120
} // end of object
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'nuke_um.jpg' (4 KB)
Preview of image 'nuke_um.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That is one heck of a 'lathe' there. If I tried that shape POV would
just show me a error or crash the display window.
I'm going to render your script to check it out.
Ken wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I gave this one hours time and it's all I had to spend on this little
> project. I now hand it off to whom so ever wishes to develope it further.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
>
> camera {location<0,1,-18>look_at y*1}
>
> #declare Shroom =
> lathe{
> quadratic_spline
> 40,
> <0.0000,0.0000>,<0.7501,0.0000>,<0.7500,0.0000>,<0.7908,0.0102>,
> <0.8266,0.0408>,<0.8266,0.0918>,<0.7960,0.1530>,<0.7448,0.1938>,
> <0.6734,0.1938>,<0.5868,0.1734>,<0.4846,0.1836>,<0.4286,0.1734>,
> <0.4030,0.1326>,<0.3520,0.1020>,<0.2756,0.0816>,<0.2244,0.1122>,
> <0.1990,0.1734>,<0.1480,0.2756>,<0.1276,0.4286>,<0.1122,0.6836>,
> <0.0920,1.0000>,<0.0920,1.1836>,<0.0970,1.2654>,<0.1224,1.1530>,
> <0.1428,1.1224>,<0.1990,1.0714>,<0.2756,1.0408>,<0.3776,1.0612>,
> <0.4488,1.1020>,<0.5154,1.2040>,<0.5460,1.3674>,<0.5106,1.5200>,
> <0.4494,1.5716>,<0.3780,1.6024>,<0.3522,1.6134>,<0.3060,1.6236>,
> <0.2644,1.6340>,<0.1480,1.6444>,<0.0714,1.6546>,<0.0102,1.6656>
> sturm pigment{rgbt 1} hollow }
>
>
> object { Shroom
> interior {
> media {
> absorption .5
> emission rgb .5
> scattering { 3, rgb 4 extinction .10 }
> density { granite color_map { [.5 rgb .6][.85 rgb 1] }
> scale .5
> warp { turbulence .03 lambda 1.4 omega 2.0 octaves 4 }
> rotate 0*-y
> } // end of density
> intervals 35
> samples 10, 35
> variance 0.001
> confidence 0.999
> } // end of media
> } // end of interior
> scale 3
> rotate y*120
> } // end of object
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Image]
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aol com?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmm, animating it may prove difficult.
GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
GrimDude wrote:
>
> Hmm, animating it may prove difficult.
>
You bet. Took 2h 46m to render this one, with AA on, on a 233MMX cpu. I
used a double instance of the object though and it would have probably
taken only 1h 45m I guess. I did so many s-l-o-w test renders at 160x120
I gave up at this point with a 320x240 res. See what you think,
realistic or not. I believe it's lacking a lot still. Namely better
color differentation.
Disclaimer: nuking of any form is not necessarily endorsed by the maker
of this image nor implied to be by the newsgroup proprietors. But you
may want to check with the original creator and poster(s) as to their
beliefs.
How's that for legal mumbo-jumbo?
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download '0nuke.jpg' (12 KB)
Preview of image '0nuke.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
We povers are really peace-lovers. Except when it comes to cpu hours...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob Hughes wrote:
>
> GrimDude wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, animating it may prove difficult.
> >
>
> You bet. Took 2h 46m to render this one, with AA on, on a 233MMX cpu. I
> used a double instance of the object though and it would have probably
> taken only 1h 45m I guess. I did so many s-l-o-w test renders at 160x120
> I gave up at this point with a 320x240 res. See what you think,
> realistic or not. I believe it's lacking a lot still. Namely better
> color differentation.
>
> Disclaimer: nuking of any form is not necessarily endorsed by the maker
> of this image nor implied to be by the newsgroup proprietors. But you
> may want to check with the original creator and poster(s) as to their
> beliefs.
>
> How's that for legal mumbo-jumbo?
I don't know about that but it seems to me that as an American tax
payer I am sure that at least some portion of my earnings have gone
towards the development and deployment of nuclear weaponry. I hate to
see my hard earned money go to waste and think we should go nuke the
_ell out of something just so they don't go to waste. You know
something like the dark side of the moon or one of the lesser planets
would do it for me. I'm easily pleased an this would impress the _ell
out of me. Maybe a year 2000 multi national super nuclear fireworks
extravaganza compliments of the US military in cooperation with, and
aided by, the former Soviet Union, India, France and China's nuclear
weapons arsonals.
----------------
I am very impressed with the improvements you have made to the source
I posted. About the only thing I believe you missed is a circular shock
wave at ground level similar to the aerial version you have depicted.
I seem to recall that the shock wave is much flatter than the one above
and it's lateral travel is well in advance of the terrestrial debris
cloud at the base of the detonation. I have seen a similar effect when
one of the 2000lb bombs, dropped from a B-52 on Iraq during the gulf war,
detonates. The shock wave is quite visible and you can clearly see a
visible atmospheric distortion as it spreads laterally out from the
point of impact.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ah, yes, I didn't think of that. Thanks. You may have just caused me to
render another few hours on this "blasted" thing.
Ken wrote:
>
> About the only thing I believe you missed is a circular shock
> wave at ground level similar to the aerial version you have depicted.
> I seem to recall that the shock wave is much flatter than the one above
> and it's lateral travel is well in advance of the terrestrial debris
> cloud at the base of the detonation. I have seen a similar effect when
> one of the 2000lb bombs, dropped from a B-52 on Iraq during the gulf war,
> detonates. The shock wave is quite visible and you can clearly see a
> visible atmospheric distortion as it spreads laterally out from the
> point of impact.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote in message <371BA51F.F832DB7C@pacbell.net>...
>
> I don't know about that but it seems to me that as an American tax
>payer I am sure that at least some portion of my earnings have gone
>towards the development and deployment of nuclear weaponry. I hate to
>see my hard earned money go to waste and think we should go nuke the
>_ell out of something just so they don't go to waste. You know
>something like the dark side of the moon or one of the lesser planets
>would do it for me. I'm easily pleased an this would impress the _ell
>out of me. Maybe a year 2000 multi national super nuclear fireworks
>extravaganza compliments of the US military in cooperation with, and
>aided by, the former Soviet Union, India, France and China's nuclear
>weapons arsonals.
>
Maybe the Y2K bug will initiate something interesting ;)
>
> I am very impressed with the improvements you have made to the source
>I posted. About the only thing I believe you missed is a circular shock
>wave at ground level similar to the aerial version you have depicted.
>I seem to recall that the shock wave is much flatter than the one above
>and it's lateral travel is well in advance of the terrestrial debris
>cloud at the base of the detonation. I have seen a similar effect when
>one of the 2000lb bombs, dropped from a B-52 on Iraq during the gulf war,
>detonates. The shock wave is quite visible and you can clearly see a
>visible atmospheric distortion as it spreads laterally out from the
>point of impact.
>
Not that I'm a bomb expert or anything, but I think the shock wave should be
roughly spherical. A thin-walled sphere with a slightly higher IOR might do
the trick...
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Maybe a year 2000 multi national super nuclear fireworks
>extravaganza compliments of the US military in cooperation with, and
>aided by, the former Soviet Union, India, France and China's nuclear
>weapons arsonals.
Well ya' know, the Nostrodamos(spelling?) prophesy of world war 3 starts
in July this summer. So mabye you'll get your wish :-)
Could be some nut reads this thread and takes it heart. Like it was
intended for him....
...hey wait a minute....Where's that cancel post button?
--
...coffee?...yes please! extra sugar,extra cream...Thank you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It's certainly getting there, but I think it's lost a bit of
shape.
Steve
Bob Hughes wrote:
>
> GrimDude wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, animating it may prove difficult.
> >
>
> You bet. Took 2h 46m to render this one, with AA on, on a 233MMX cpu. I
> used a double instance of the object though and it would have probably
> taken only 1h 45m I guess. I did so many s-l-o-w test renders at 160x120
> I gave up at this point with a 320x240 res. See what you think,
> realistic or not. I believe it's lacking a lot still. Namely better
> color differentation.
>
> Disclaimer: nuking of any form is not necessarily endorsed by the maker
> of this image nor implied to be by the newsgroup proprietors. But you
> may want to check with the original creator and poster(s) as to their
> beliefs.
>
> How's that for legal mumbo-jumbo?
>
> --
> omniVERSE: beyond the universe
> http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
> mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> [Image]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here's the ground shockwave addition. Funny Margus would mention an ior
in it. I thought of that while adding it in (higher pressure air,
thicker, denser, so higher refraction? sounds good) though I only used
it in the outer ring and no noticeable difference.
I still need to add a better absorption to the mushroom to mask out the
background, or rather, give it better thickness. I enhanced the
atmosphere shockwave a bit and removed the inner media object as well,
it was just messing it up anyway. Speedier render of course, around an
hour and a half I think. Closed POV before looking.
May be back with a third (and final?).
Bob Hughes wrote:
>
> GrimDude wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, animating it may prove difficult.
> >
>
> You bet. Took 2h 46m to render this one, with AA on, on a 233MMX cpu. I
> used a double instance of the object though and it would have probably
> taken only 1h 45m I guess. I did so many s-l-o-w test renders at 160x120
> I gave up at this point with a 320x240 res. See what you think,
> realistic or not. I believe it's lacking a lot still. Namely better
> color differentation.
>
> Disclaimer: nuking of any form is not necessarily endorsed by the maker
> of this image nor implied to be by the newsgroup proprietors. But you
> may want to check with the original creator and poster(s) as to their
> beliefs.
>
> How's that for legal mumbo-jumbo?
>
> --
> omniVERSE: beyond the universe
> http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
> mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Image]
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download '2nuke.jpg' (17 KB)
Preview of image '2nuke.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The shockwave should be spherical. The one he has in the sky is part of
the shockwave from the ground pushing the atmosphere out of the way.
Ever watch Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie with Wiliam Shatner
narrating? Has declassified US bomb footage. Scary. But shows effects
nicely.
Ken wrote:
>
> Bob Hughes wrote:
> >
> > GrimDude wrote:
> > >
> > > Hmm, animating it may prove difficult.
> > >
> >
> > You bet. Took 2h 46m to render this one, with AA on, on a 233MMX cpu. I
> > used a double instance of the object though and it would have probably
> > taken only 1h 45m I guess. I did so many s-l-o-w test renders at 160x120
> > I gave up at this point with a 320x240 res. See what you think,
> > realistic or not. I believe it's lacking a lot still. Namely better
> > color differentation.
> >
> > Disclaimer: nuking of any form is not necessarily endorsed by the maker
> > of this image nor implied to be by the newsgroup proprietors. But you
> > may want to check with the original creator and poster(s) as to their
> > beliefs.
> >
> > How's that for legal mumbo-jumbo?
>
> I don't know about that but it seems to me that as an American tax
> payer I am sure that at least some portion of my earnings have gone
> towards the development and deployment of nuclear weaponry. I hate to
> see my hard earned money go to waste and think we should go nuke the
> _ell out of something just so they don't go to waste. You know
> something like the dark side of the moon or one of the lesser planets
> would do it for me. I'm easily pleased an this would impress the _ell
> out of me. Maybe a year 2000 multi national super nuclear fireworks
> extravaganza compliments of the US military in cooperation with, and
> aided by, the former Soviet Union, India, France and China's nuclear
> weapons arsonals.
>
> ----------------
>
> I am very impressed with the improvements you have made to the source
> I posted. About the only thing I believe you missed is a circular shock
> wave at ground level similar to the aerial version you have depicted.
> I seem to recall that the shock wave is much flatter than the one above
> and it's lateral travel is well in advance of the terrestrial debris
> cloud at the base of the detonation. I have seen a similar effect when
> one of the 2000lb bombs, dropped from a B-52 on Iraq during the gulf war,
> detonates. The shock wave is quite visible and you can clearly see a
> visible atmospheric distortion as it spreads laterally out from the
> point of impact.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
There is something frightening in your image beyond the fear of atomic
weapons : it looks like the holy Graal with a halo (holy halo, alas)
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Number 3. 3rd times a charm, with a bit of tweaking.
I used the number 2 image combined with a 3rd render, having better
absorption, by using layered image_map textures with transmit and filter
on a white 'background'.
I still wasn't entirely happy with the contrast of that render so I
opened it into PSP and adjusted it there; not much, but much better.
Probably could have gotten a good finish to do the same though I used no
light.
Speaking of light, I used two in the top of the explosion cloud. One
point light and one a 'spotlight' above that and pointing down with a
'radius 15 falloff 30 tightness 1'.
Don't think I said before but the air cloud and ground rings are simply
textured torii, no media in them. It was too slow that way.
Bob Hughes wrote:
>
> Here's the ground shockwave addition. Funny Margus would mention an ior
> in it. I thought of that while adding it in (higher pressure air,
> thicker, denser, so higher refraction? sounds good) though I only used
> it in the outer ring and no noticeable difference.
> I still need to add a better absorption to the mushroom to mask out the
> background, or rather, give it better thickness. I enhanced the
> atmosphere shockwave a bit and removed the inner media object as well,
> it was just messing it up anyway. Speedier render of course, around an
> hour and a half I think. Closed POV before looking.
> May be back with a third (and final?).
>
> Bob Hughes wrote:
> >
> > GrimDude wrote:
> > >
> > > Hmm, animating it may prove difficult.
> > >
> >
> > You bet. Took 2h 46m to render this one, with AA on, on a 233MMX cpu. I
> > used a double instance of the object though and it would have probably
> > taken only 1h 45m I guess. I did so many s-l-o-w test renders at 160x120
> > I gave up at this point with a 320x240 res. See what you think,
> > realistic or not. I believe it's lacking a lot still. Namely better
> > color differentation.
> >
> > Disclaimer: nuking of any form is not necessarily endorsed by the maker
> > of this image nor implied to be by the newsgroup proprietors. But you
> > may want to check with the original creator and poster(s) as to their
> > beliefs.
> >
> > How's that for legal mumbo-jumbo?
> >
> > --
> > omniVERSE: beyond the universe
> > http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
> > mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > [Image]
>
> --
> omniVERSE: beyond the universe
> http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
> mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Image]
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download '3nuke.jpg' (25 KB)
Preview of image '3nuke.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob Hughes wrote:
>
> Number 3. 3rd times a charm, with a bit of tweaking.
> I used the number 2 image combined with a 3rd render, having better
> absorption, by using layered image_map textures with transmit and filter
> on a white 'background'.
> I still wasn't entirely happy with the contrast of that render so I
> opened it into PSP and adjusted it there; not much, but much better.
> Probably could have gotten a good finish to do the same though I used no
> light.
> Speaking of light, I used two in the top of the explosion cloud. One
> point light and one a 'spotlight' above that and pointing down with a
> 'radius 15 falloff 30 tightness 1'.
> Don't think I said before but the air cloud and ground rings are simply
> textured torii, no media in them. It was too slow that way.
Ok Bob. I'm ready to take my source back now so I can add the
finishing touches. Thanks for taking the tim....
Seriously I would like to see what you have done with the media.
I'm not so sure I would have resorted to the buried light source but
in this game whatever achieves the desired goal is acceptable. If you
would prefer not to make it public you are welcome to send it to me
privately, or not at all is an option too. You have piqued my curiosity
now and that can be a terrible itch for me to try to scratch.
From a purely technical point of view the symmetrical shape of the
upper dome is all wrong at least when compared to some of the earlier
photographed images of aerial detonations. The top should not be nearly
as flat and symmetrically round as the lathe object I made and there is
quite a bit of turbulence to the formation of the upper levels that
give this away as a computer construct. For scenes that the cloud
will not be in a position to be examined with such scrutiny I doubt
that it would matter all that much.
Take a look at the image below. The image on the left is a shot of
the Nagasaki detonation well after the plane had turned and the image
on the right is the famed Trinity detonation. Both exhibit different
behaviour so who knows how the current weapons appear having the
benefit of state of the art design and manufacturing facilities to
produce them with.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'nuke_um2.jpg' (15 KB)
Preview of image 'nuke_um2.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> Take a look at the image below. The image on the left is a shot of
> the Nagasaki detonation well after the plane had turned and the image
> on the right is the famed Trinity detonation. Both exhibit different
> behaviour so who knows how the current weapons appear having the
> benefit of state of the art design and manufacturing facilities to
> produce them with.
Correction: Switch my left/right descriptions to match the actual
photos position in the image provided. Sorry for the misdirection
on my part.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
>
> From a purely technical point of view the symmetrical shape of the
> upper dome is all wrong at least when compared to some of the earlier
> photographed images of aerial detonations. The top should not be nearly
> as flat and symmetrically round as the lathe object I made and there is
> quite a bit of turbulence to the formation of the upper levels that
> give this away as a computer construct. For scenes that the cloud
> will not be in a position to be examined with such scrutiny I doubt
> that it would matter all that much.
>
> Take a look at the image below. The image on the left is a shot of
> the Nagasaki detonation well after the plane had turned and the image
> on the right is the famed Trinity detonation. Both exhibit different
> behaviour so who knows how the current weapons appear having the
> benefit of state of the art design and manufacturing facilities to
> produce them with.
>
The biggest difference between the trinity test and the later bombing
has been the height of the detonation point. While the trinity test used
a tower with a height of about guessed 30 or 40 meters while the dropped
bombs were detonated at height of (if I remember correctly) 500 meters
to maximize the damage done by the shockwave (as if that had been
necessary!).
The mushroom cloud should build up nontheless even at the trinity site
because this is caused by convection of the heated air. The pic you
showed was taken in a early stage of the explosion.
Even modern weapons, designed to produced special shockwaves etc. will
show a mushroom cloud if they are fused in the vicinity to ground.
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I thought that looked wrong somehow, see it correctly now.
The lathe is great though, it's more the problem with getting a
turbulent look with media that makes it difficult to use. This is a
classic example of how well a turbulence for objects themselves would be
of good use.
Well, I actually meant to add that script in with my uploaded image,
slipped my mind, as I hastily ran through all these posts and replies at
n.p.o.
So I was thinking of emailing it to you, signed off before writing the
email. Now I can get it put here (watch out for line wrap) and you'll
see just how sloppy my pov making can be.
//BEGIN
global_settings {
max_trace_level 10
}
camera {location<0,0,-9> look_at y*2.5}
//sphere {0,1 pigment {rgb 1}} //measuring stick used to judge size
//ground
plane {y,.125 pigment {rgb<.8,.7,.5>} finish {ambient .3 diffuse .7
phong .5 phong_size 1} rotate -3*x}
// evening
sky_sphere { //0,1 hollow //if sphere instead
pigment {
gradient y
color_map { [0.0 color rgb<0.9,0.5,0.475>] [1.0 color
rgb<0.2,0.45,0.65>] }
} //finish {ambient .75 diffuse .25} //if sphere
//scale 100 //if sphere
}
#declare Shroom =
lathe{
quadratic_spline
40,
<0.0000,0.0000>,<0.7501,0.0000>,<0.7500,0.0000>,<0.7908,0.0102>,
<0.8266,0.0408>,<0.8266,0.0918>,<0.7960,0.1530>,<0.7448,0.1938>,
<0.6734,0.1938>,<0.5868,0.1734>,<0.4846,0.1836>,<0.4286,0.1734>,
<0.4030,0.1326>,<0.3520,0.1020>,<0.2756,0.0816>,<0.2244,0.1122>,
<0.1990,0.1734>,<0.1480,0.2756>,<0.1276,0.4286>,<0.1122,0.6836>,
<0.0920,1.0000>,<0.0920,1.1836>,<0.0970,1.2654>,<0.1224,1.1530>,
<0.1428,1.1224>,<0.1990,1.0714>,<0.2756,1.0408>,<0.3776,1.0612>,
<0.4488,1.1020>,<0.5154,1.2040>,<0.5460,1.3674>,<0.5106,1.5200>,
<0.4494,1.5716>,<0.3780,1.6024>,<0.3522,1.6134>,<0.3060,1.6236>,
<0.2644,1.6340>,<0.1480,1.6444>,<0.0714,1.6546>,<0.0102,1.6656>
sturm hollow }
#declare DD=.125 //emission and absorption multiplier
#declare D=3 //densities multiplier
//the blast cloud
#declare Nuke =
union {
object { Shroom pigment{rgbf 1} //capable of shadow
interior {
media {
absorption <.4,.5,.6>*.75*DD
emission rgb <.6,.5,.4>*.33*DD
scattering { 2, rgb <1,.9,.8>*.125*DD extinction .1 }
density { spherical frequency 4 color_map { [.1 rgb
<.5,.35,.25>*2*D][.5 rgb <1,1,1>*2*D] }
scale 1
warp { turbulence .6 lambda 2 omega 1.0 octaves 4 }
rotate 0*-y translate 3*y
} // end of density
density { cylindrical frequency 2 color_map { [.3 rgb
<1.5,1.25,1.25>*3*D][.6 rgb <.15,.1,.125>*6*D] }
scale .15
warp { turbulence .9 lambda 2 omega 1.0 octaves 4 }
rotate 0*-y //translate 2*z
} // end of density
density { gradient y frequency -2 color_map { [.3 rgb
<1.25,1.25,1.5>*.5*D][.6 rgb <.125,.1,.15>*1.5*D] }
scale 3
warp { turbulence .9 lambda 2 omega 1.0 octaves 4 }
rotate 0*-y translate -3*y
} // end of density
intervals 6
samples 1, 1
variance 0.1
confidence 0.9
} // end of media
media {
absorption <.4,.5,.6>*1*DD
//emission rgb <.6,.5,.4>*.25*DD
//scattering { 2, rgb <1,.9,.8>*.125*DD extinction .1 }
density { spherical frequency -4 color_map { [.1 rgb
<.5,.35,.25>*2*D][.5 rgb <1,1,1>*2*D] }
scale .1
warp { turbulence .6 lambda 2 omega 1.0 octaves 4 }
rotate 0*-y translate 3*y
} // end of density
density { cylindrical frequency -2 color_map { [.3 rgb
<1.5,1.25,1.25>*3*D][.6 rgb <.15,.1,.125>*6*D] }
scale .015
warp { turbulence .9 lambda 2 omega 1.0 octaves 4 }
rotate 0*-y //translate 2*z
} // end of density
density { gradient y frequency 2 color_map { [.3 rgb
<1.25,1.25,1.5>*.5*D][.6 rgb <.125,.1,.15>*1.5*D] }
scale .3
warp { turbulence .9 lambda 2 omega 1.0 octaves 4 }
rotate 0*-y translate -3*y
} // end of density
intervals 3
samples 1, 1
variance 0.1
confidence 0.9
} // end of media
} // end of interior
scale 3
// rotate y*120
} // end of object
/*
#declare DD2=.25 //emission and absorption multiplier
#declare D2=2.25 //densities multiplier
//interior //not used
object { Shroom pigment{rgbt 1}
interior {
media {
absorption <.3,.5,.7>*.75*DD2
emission rgb <.7,.55,.45>*.25*DD2
scattering { 3, rgb <1,.9,.8>*.125*DD2 extinction .2 }
density { spherical frequency 4 color_map { [.1 rgb
<.5,.5,.5>*2*D2][.5 rgb <1,1,1>*2*D2] }
scale 1
warp { turbulence .6 lambda 2 omega 1.0 octaves 4 }
rotate 0*-y translate 3*y
} // end of density
density { cylindrical frequency 2 color_map { [.3 rgb
<1.5,1.5,1.5>*3*D2][.6 rgb <.1,.1,.1>*6*D2] }
scale .15
warp { turbulence .9 lambda 2 omega 1.0 octaves 4 }
rotate 0*-y //translate 2*z
} // end of density
density { gradient y frequency -2 color_map { [.3 rgb
<1.5,1.5,1.5>*.5*D2][.6 rgb <.1,.1,.1>*1.5*D2] }
scale 3
warp { turbulence .9 lambda 2 omega 1.0 octaves 4 }
rotate 0*-y translate -3*y
} // end of density
intervals 2
samples 1, 4
variance 0.01
confidence 0.9
} // end of media
fade_distance 2 fade_power 1
} // end of interior
scale <2.9,2.9,2.9>
// rotate y*120
} // end of object
*/
//internal light
light_source {<0,4,0> color rgb <1.5,1.45,1.4>*.66
area_light <3,0,0>,<0,0,3>,3,3 jitter adaptive 0
fade_distance 4 fade_power 2
media_attenuation on
}
light_source {<0,5,0> color rgb <1.5,1.25,1.2>*.5
//area_light <3,0,0>,<0,0,3>,3,3 jitter adaptive 0
spotlight point_at 0 radius 15 falloff 30 tightness 1
fade_distance 3 fade_power 3
media_attenuation on
}
//air cloud
torus {4,1 hollow scale <1,.25,1>
texture {
pigment {spherical frequency 2.9 //rgbt 1}}
color_map {
[0 color rgbf 1]
[.4 color rgbf <1.1,1,1,.7>]
[.7 color rgbf <1.05,1,1,.4>]
[1 color rgbf <1,1,1,.9>]
} scale 5.05 } finish {ambient .66 diffuse 1 phong .1 phong_size 10}
}
translate 5*y
}
//ground cloud
difference {
torus {4,.5 hollow scale <1,.75,1>}
torus {4,.5 scale <.9,1,.9> translate .25*y}
texture {
pigment {spherical frequency 2.9 turbulence .1 lambda 2 omega 1 //rgbt
1}}
color_map {
[0 color rgbf 1]
[.4 color rgbf <1,.9,.95,.8>]
[.7 color rgbf <1,.925,.9,.6>]
[1 color rgbf <1,1,1,1>]
} scale 5.05 } finish {ambient .75 diffuse 1}
}
scale <.95,.33,.95> rotate -3*x translate .125*y
}
//shockwave
difference {
torus {4,.5 hollow scale <1,.75,1>}
torus {4,.5 scale <.9,1,.9> translate .25*y}
texture {
pigment {spherical frequency 2.9 turbulence .02 lambda 1.75 omega 1.5
//rgbt 1}}
color_map {
[0 color rgbf 1]
[.6 color rgbf <1,.925,.95,.85>]
[.7 color rgbf <1,.95,.975,.65>]
[1 color rgbf <1,1,1,.95>]
} scale 5.05 } finish {ambient .75 diffuse 1}
}
interior {ior 1.01}
scale <.95,.125,.95>*1.75 rotate -3*x translate .125*y
}
} //end union
Nuke //the main blast cloud
//END
--
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 in message <371C533D.B0F28C62@aol.com>...
>I thought that looked wrong somehow, see it correctly now.
>The lathe is great though, it's more the problem with getting a
>turbulent look with media that makes it difficult to use. This is a
>classic example of how well a turbulence for objects themselves would be
>of good use.
You can make turbulent objects with the Isosurface patch, provided you have
the equation for the object you want to make turbulent. The torus equation
should be there. If not, it's really quite simple - but I don't know it by
heart.
The turbulence function is called noise3d and has to be added to the object
equation.
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Marc Schimmler wrote:
> The mushroom cloud should build up nontheless even at the trinity site
> because this is caused by convection of the heated air. The pic you
> showed was taken in a early stage of the explosion.
>
> Even modern weapons, designed to produced special shockwaves etc. will
> show a mushroom cloud if they are fused in the vicinity to ground.
>
> Marc
> --
> Marc Schimmler
I have little to argue with your statements and did not mean to imply
that a mushroom cloud would be absent in a modern weapon. Quite contrary
to that I would think the effeciency of the modern versions would create
a more unifom shape than the earlier types. The majority of nukes in the
modern US arsenal are no where near as radioactive as the earlier types
due to the effeciency at which they consume the radioactive isotopes
during detonation.
My father worked in the military aerospace and weapons industry his
whole life and there were a couple of underground tests that he was
invoved with. His presence was needed to set up and monitor special
blast hardened electronics equipment that was exposed to the shock
wave of the blast.
He mentioned one time that they were allowed back into the tunnels
within two hours of the blast to retrive their equipment and needed
no protective equipment to do so. The delay was needed so the surfaces
of the tunnels could cool enough to be entered. He also mentioned that
while it was safe to go in afterwards, the equipment that they went to
retrieve had fused itself into the rock floor of the tunnel. They were
forced to use pry bars to remove it from the rock as a good 1/4 inch
or so of the rock surface had turned into a glass carbonaceous like
substance. Anyway knowing that they can control the radioactive after
effects to that high degree of precision I see no reason that they
can't design them to have a nice, pretty, and well behaved mushroom
cloud too.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> I have little to argue with your statements and did not mean to imply
> that a mushroom cloud would be absent in a modern weapon. Quite contrary
> to that I would think the effeciency of the modern versions would create
> a more unifom shape than the earlier types. The majority of nukes in the
> modern US arsenal are no where near as radioactive as the earlier types
> due to the effeciency at which they consume the radioactive isotopes
> during detonation.
> My father worked in the military aerospace and weapons industry his
> whole life and there were a couple of underground tests that he was
> invoved with. His presence was needed to set up and monitor special
> blast hardened electronics equipment that was exposed to the shock
> wave of the blast.
> He mentioned one time that they were allowed back into the tunnels
> within two hours of the blast to retrive their equipment and needed
> no protective equipment to do so. The delay was needed so the surfaces
> of the tunnels could cool enough to be entered. He also mentioned that
> while it was safe to go in afterwards, the equipment that they went to
> retrieve had fused itself into the rock floor of the tunnel. They were
> forced to use pry bars to remove it from the rock as a good 1/4 inch
> or so of the rock surface had turned into a glass carbonaceous like
> substance. Anyway knowing that they can control the radioactive after
> effects to that high degree of precision I see no reason that they
> can't design them to have a nice, pretty, and well behaved mushroom
> cloud too.
>
I think the beauty of the cloud has never been a primary development
target! :-)
The behaviour of the cloud depends on so many factors like the
environment under the blast area or in the case of ground fusing the
shape of the surroundings that the design of the weapon is only
secondary.
Well I hope that I never have the chance to see this kind of clound in
real. For the simulation your cloud is more than sufficient! <g>
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Margus Ramst wrote:
> Bob Hughes wrote in message <371C533D.B0F28C62@aol.com>...
> >I thought that looked wrong somehow, see it correctly now.
> >The lathe is great though, it's more the problem with getting a
> >turbulent look with media that makes it difficult to use. This is a
> >classic example of how well a turbulence for objects themselves would be
> >of good use.
>
> You can make turbulent objects with the Isosurface patch, provided you have
> the equation for the object you want to make turbulent. The torus equation
> should be there. If not, it's really quite simple - but I don't know it by
> heart.
> The turbulence function is called noise3d and has to be added to the object
> equation.
Could you or someone else give me the home page url for the isosurface patch?
>
>
> Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I am in no way pro nuclear weapons just the opposite I think they are horrible
but still it would be quite the experience of a life time to witness an above
ground nuclear blast. At a safe distance of course :-)
Marc Schimmler wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> >
> > I have little to argue with your statements and did not mean to imply
> > that a mushroom cloud would be absent in a modern weapon. Quite contrary
> > to that I would think the effeciency of the modern versions would create
> > a more unifom shape than the earlier types. The majority of nukes in the
> > modern US arsenal are no where near as radioactive as the earlier types
> > due to the effeciency at which they consume the radioactive isotopes
> > during detonation.
> > My father worked in the military aerospace and weapons industry his
> > whole life and there were a couple of underground tests that he was
> > invoved with. His presence was needed to set up and monitor special
> > blast hardened electronics equipment that was exposed to the shock
> > wave of the blast.
> > He mentioned one time that they were allowed back into the tunnels
> > within two hours of the blast to retrive their equipment and needed
> > no protective equipment to do so. The delay was needed so the surfaces
> > of the tunnels could cool enough to be entered. He also mentioned that
> > while it was safe to go in afterwards, the equipment that they went to
> > retrieve had fused itself into the rock floor of the tunnel. They were
> > forced to use pry bars to remove it from the rock as a good 1/4 inch
> > or so of the rock surface had turned into a glass carbonaceous like
> > substance. Anyway knowing that they can control the radioactive after
> > effects to that high degree of precision I see no reason that they
> > can't design them to have a nice, pretty, and well behaved mushroom
> > cloud too.
> >
>
> I think the beauty of the cloud has never been a primary development
> target! :-)
>
> The behaviour of the cloud depends on so many factors like the
> environment under the blast area or in the case of ground fusing the
> shape of the surroundings that the design of the weapon is only
> secondary.
>
> Well I hope that I never have the chance to see this kind of clound in
> real. For the simulation your cloud is more than sufficient! <g>
>
> --
> Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Now I know where Ken got all his nuclear education from. I just wish he
keeps it to develop nice images in pov and nothing else...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas Lake wrote:
> Could you or someone else give me the home page url for the isosurface patch?
I recall seeing a recent upgrade announcement for it in the
povray.programming newsgroup. I'll dig it up later for you
if need be but it's not been there for more than a month or
so and should not take you too long to find it yourself.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I would have thought that something like the isosurface patch
would have been on Uncle Ken's Links Page.
Cheers
Steve
Ken wrote:
>
> Thomas Lake wrote:
>
> > Could you or someone else give me the home page url for the isosurface patch?
>
> I recall seeing a recent upgrade announcement for it in the
> povray.programming newsgroup. I'll dig it up later for you
> if need be but it's not been there for more than a month or
> so and should not take you too long to find it yourself.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steve wrote:
>
> I would have thought that something like the isosurface patch
> would have been on Uncle Ken's Links Page.
There I was just minding my own buisness when out of nowhere this guy
comes running up and steals it from me. I tried to catch him but he
was too fast for me. Since then I just haven't had the time to replace
it. It's on my to do list.
Satisfied with my answer ?
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Quick thinking :-)
Ken wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
> >
> > I would have thought that something like the isosurface patch
> > would have been on Uncle Ken's Links Page.
>
> There I was just minding my own buisness when out of nowhere this guy
> comes running up and steals it from me. I tried to catch him but he
> was too fast for me. Since then I just haven't had the time to replace
> it. It's on my to do list.
>
> Satisfied with my answer ?
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Got the link. Thanks Ken!
Ken wrote:
> Thomas Lake wrote:
>
> > Could you or someone else give me the home page url for the isosurface patch?
>
> I recall seeing a recent upgrade announcement for it in the
> povray.programming newsgroup. I'll dig it up later for you
> if need be but it's not been there for more than a month or
> so and should not take you too long to find it yourself.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas Lake wrote in message <371D07D1.E2C4CCC9@home.com>...
>
>Could you or someone else give me the home page url for the isosurface
patch?
>
You already got the link, but I should add that an earlier version of the
Isosurface patch is also included in the Superpatch. Might come in handy to
have the functionality of the both.
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I like it since I've had perverse fascination with the bomb since
childhood. It looks very much like some of the tactical nuclear
tests done in Nevada in the 50's. My only criticism as others
have pointed out is the lack of a ground shockwave from the
blast.
If you are interested in the technical details of nuclear blasts and
such you might want to check out the High Energy Weapons Archive
at http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/index.html
There are lots of good pictures of bomb tests and tons of info
on nuclear weapons effects. Everything you wanted to know about
nukes but were afraid to ask. . .
B. Katt
--
To reply via e-mail, please remove spamblock.
> Disclaimer: nuking of any form is not necessarily endorsed by the maker
> of this image nor implied to be by the newsgroup proprietors. But you
> may want to check with the original creator and poster(s) as to their
> beliefs.
>
> How's that for legal mumbo-jumbo?
>
>
> --
> omniVERSE: beyond the universe
> http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
> mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
B. Katt wrote:
>
> I like it since I've had perverse fascination with the bomb since
> childhood. It looks very much like some of the tactical nuclear
> tests done in Nevada in the 50's. My only criticism as others
> have pointed out is the lack of a ground shockwave from the
> blast.
>
> If you are interested in the technical details of nuclear blasts and
> such you might want to check out the High Energy Weapons Archive
> at http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/index.html
>
> There are lots of good pictures of bomb tests and tons of info
> on nuclear weapons effects. Everything you wanted to know about
> nukes but were afraid to ask. . .
>
> B. Katt
I have been looking for a good link to imagery like this and
thank you for sharing it with us.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Maybe more than I ever wanted to know.
The shockwave addition image is attatched to one of my replies here. The
third image of 3. Four if you count Kens initial "nuke object".
Looking at some other pictures it becomes apparent almost any shape
could be used. A turbulent media in a sphere container would suffice. I
like Kens lathe shape best.
"B. Katt" wrote:
>
> I like it since I've had perverse fascination with the bomb since
> childhood. It looks very much like some of the tactical nuclear
> tests done in Nevada in the 50's. My only criticism as others
> have pointed out is the lack of a ground shockwave from the
> blast.
>
> If you are interested in the technical details of nuclear blasts and
> such you might want to check out the High Energy Weapons Archive
> at http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/index.html
>
> There are lots of good pictures of bomb tests and tons of info
> on nuclear weapons effects. Everything you wanted to know about
> nukes but were afraid to ask. . .
>
> B. Katt
> --
> To reply via e-mail, please remove spamblock.
>
> > Disclaimer: nuking of any form is not necessarily endorsed by the maker
> > of this image nor implied to be by the newsgroup proprietors. But you
> > may want to check with the original creator and poster(s) as to their
> > beliefs.
> >
> > How's that for legal mumbo-jumbo?
> >
> >
> > --
> > omniVERSE: beyond the universe
> > http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
> > mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
