 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
