 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is nice, I have been thinking about doing something with planes :)
how about banking the plane a little, and the prop needs work, maybe try
adding a near transparent disc to the prop as well to make the area where
the props spin look darker, may help to make it look more like motion.
Rick
GrimDude <vos### [at] arkansas net> wrote in message
news:372f065a.0@news.povray.org...
> T-Storms and Tornadoes are keeping me from getting this done, but I
> thought I'd risk my modem to share this with you all.
> Obviously, I don't have everything set exactly right yet, but radiosity
is
> really helping this scene. I cropped this down to the P51, so as not to
> reveal too many details. I don't want to spoil everything! :)
>
> --
> GrimDude
> vos### [at] arkansasnet
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote in message <372F8E4F.DAE4F1C8@pacbell.net>...
>
>The old xmtr/rcvrs they used needed that much wire and more if they wanted
>any chance at all of picking up the signals at the low freq's they used.
>Any idea what the actual length of the wire is from the set to end of wire
?
>
>
>
>Before I forget - Nice bird. I'm impressed - but not so much I wouldn't
prefer
>a larger more detailed image to ponder over >-8 }
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Somewhere around here I have the specifics, if you really want them
(specific to which model of the 51?) :)
Double negatives are so confusing! Did you mean you really want another
image, or that you are not so impressed? :)
GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rick (Kitty5) wrote in message <372f9671.0@news.povray.org>...
>This is nice, I have been thinking about doing something with planes :)
>how about banking the plane a little, and the prop needs work, maybe try
>adding a near transparent disc to the prop as well to make the area where
>the props spin look darker, may help to make it look more like motion.
>
>Rick
>
Hmm, the disc is already there. Something about the way the scene is setup
has caused portions to disappear, and others to darken drastically. I could
*force* more density, but I think that, perhaps, the final image will make
things more apparent. This was just a beginning to radiosity with this
particular model (and scene), which is not without its own errors.
Hopefully, more work and effort will pay off.
GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
GrimDude wrote:
> Somewhere around here I have the specifics, if you really want them
> (specific to which model of the 51?) :)
Just curiosity. It is probably equivelant in length to a 1/4 wave antenna
just by guessing and no one else around here would care one way or another.
If it's in front of you drop the number off. If you have to rumage for it
don't waste your time. If I really want to know bad enough I could find
out in fairly short order on one of the ham groups.
> Double negatives are so confusing! Did you mean you really want another
> image, or that you are not so impressed? :)
>
> GrimDude
> vos### [at] arkansasnet
I meant to say I like the model work from what I can see so far but the
image you posted was lacking in size, clarity, and sharpness. I would of
course prefer to evaluate anothers art using the best medium for that
evaluation and feel I have not yet had that advantage.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
heh, okay.
14'-1/4" for the D-model Mustangs stationed in Europe. I understand they
were a little longer for the Pacific theatre. The frequencies in use at the
time are probably well known, but were not included in this reference
("Detail and Scale"; issue 8251, volume 51; Squadron Signal Publications,
1997). I could find out more, but the rest of my volumes are packed away too
deep. <G>
Some of the problems I am seeing in the model I created are:
1) Close ports and seams seem to be swamped by ambient light. Check out the
bright radiator inlet, and rudder hinge line. Perhaps a problem with
distance_maximum?
2) I applied the decals (image_maps) only to the opposite side of the
aircraft, without clipping. Big mistake. I should remove them or do them
right.
3) The painted surfaces are darkening unrealistically, or so I feel. If
anyone has a clue as to why this is, let me in on it :)
4) The aircraft panel lines have been ignored by choice. The model has
already exceeded 8megs, and that's enough. If, I ever get things looking
good, I may go back and clip out the individual panels.
5) Wingtips are a b****. <G> Nuff said.
Further criticisms welcome.
GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'Rad51-3.jpg' (47 KB)
Preview of image 'Rad51-3.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
GrimDude wrote:
>
> heh, okay.
> 14'-1/4" for the D-model Mustangs stationed in Europe. I understand they
> were a little longer for the Pacific theatre. The frequencies in use at the
> time are probably well known, but were not included in this reference
> ("Detail and Scale"; issue 8251, volume 51; Squadron Signal Publications,
> 1997). I could find out more, but the rest of my volumes are packed away too
> deep. <G>
Thanks for the input.
> Some of the problems I am seeing in the model I created are:
> 1) Close ports and seams seem to be swamped by ambient light. Check out the
> bright radiator inlet, and rudder hinge line. Perhaps a problem with
> distance_maximum?
"distance_maximum?" ?
Perhaps the amount of diffused finish used but more likely caused
by phong highlighting in the metallic finish statement or a combination
of the two. Remove the phong if it's in there and try specular instead.
I like to try amounts starting with specular 0.6 roughness 0.001 to
0.0001 for really tight highlights.
> 2) I applied the decals (image_maps) only to the opposite side of the
> aircraft, without clipping. Big mistake. I should remove them or do them
> right.
Yup !
> 3) The painted surfaces are darkening unrealistically, or so I feel. If
> anyone has a clue as to why this is, let me in on it :)
How far is the light source from the object. I have noticed a more
uniform lighting model when the light source is greater than say 200
-300 pov units from the object. It seems to give more proximity related
traits inside the 100-200 pov unit range and even more so from 100-0.
Try different light source distances and evaluate the changes they
make in the appearence of the model. Also try a silver colored fill
light to add to the reflected color from the aircrafts surface.
Couldn't hurt to experiment a bit at this point.
Finish statements are of course always suspect when a texture, or
pigment with finish, does not perform as expected.
> 4) The aircraft panel lines have been ignored by choice. The model has
> already exceeded 8megs, and that's enough. If, I ever get things looking
> good, I may go back and clip out the individual panels.
I'll fix the roof as soon as it stops raining. (cough)
> 5) Wingtips are a b****. <G> Nuff said.
Tapered swept wingtips are a serious B**** !!! Nuff indeed.
> Further criticisms welcome.
I've had my say thank you.
> GrimDude
> vos### [at] arkansasnet
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
GrimDude wrote:
>
> T-Storms and Tornadoes are keeping me from getting this done, but I
> thought I'd risk my modem to share this with you all.
> Obviously, I don't have everything set exactly right yet, but radiosity is
> really helping this scene. I cropped this down to the P51, so as not to
> reveal too many details. I don't want to spoil everything! :)
>
> --
> GrimDude
> vos### [at] arkansasnet
>
Very well done!
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
GrimDude wrote in message <372f8829.0@news.povray.org>...
>fin. The vertical mast is actually another radio, intended to be a
>directional finder.
Eek, poor edit again.
The vertical mast is actually *for* another radio,...
Sorry.
GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote in message <372FEA53.E3AAABAC@pacbell.net>...
>GrimDude wrote:
>>
>> heh, okay.
>> 14'-1/4" for the D-model ...
>
> Thanks for the input.
>
No problem! Should you need any further information of this kind (relative
to the Mustang I, II, III, P51, P51A, B, C, D, K, H or F-82 Twin Mustang)
don't hesitate to ask!
>> Perhaps a problem with distance_maximum?
>
> "distance_maximum?" ?
>
Well, I thought I had tried enough variations that I might have discovered a
bug somewhere. Still testing...
> Perhaps the amount of diffused finish used but more likely caused
> by phong highlighting in the metallic finish statement or a combination
> of the two. Remove the phong if it's in there and try specular instead.
> I like to try amounts starting with specular 0.6 roughness 0.001 to
> 0.0001 for really tight highlights.
>
Actually, my texture is similar to your suggestion here. I used a high
brilliance, which I am testing now.
>
> How far is the light source from the object. I have noticed a more
> uniform lighting model when the light source is greater than say 200
> -300 pov units from the object. It seems to give more proximity related
> traits inside the 100-200 pov unit range and even more so from 100-0.
> Try different light source distances and evaluate the changes they
> make in the appearence of the model. Also try a silver colored fill
> light to add to the reflected color from the aircrafts surface.
> Couldn't hurt to experiment a bit at this point.
>
> Finish statements are of course always suspect when a texture, or
> pigment with finish, does not perform as expected.
>
I was inside of 100 units with the light_source, but relative to what? My
model spans .1x.08x.03 (or so) units, and the light_source is 39 units
distance. I'm testing a much greater distance now.
>> 4) The aircraft panel lines have been ignored by choice. The model has
>> already exceeded 8megs, and that's enough. If, I ever get things looking
>> good, I may go back and clip out the individual panels.
>
> I'll fix the roof as soon as it stops raining. (cough)
>
Primitives are much easier to deal with then those sloping roofs.
Additionally, I think there may be a bug in the program I used to convert
from TruSpace's .dxf output into Pov's smooth triangles. I'm looking into
this too, but I've noticed that the finish on the wing surface, and anywhere
I've done a sharp clip, has been dulled severely. I'm hoping it's just a
coincidence and I'll find something else that fixes this.
The more I work on these planes (and no, not just 51's), the more I find
there is to add detail-wise.
Thanks for the suggestions! :)
GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I don't know much about planes, but I'm sure that the finished
article will be impressive.
Cheers
Steve
GrimDude wrote:
>
> T-Storms and Tornadoes are keeping me from getting this done, but I
> thought I'd risk my modem to share this with you all.
> Obviously, I don't have everything set exactly right yet, but radiosity is
> really helping this scene. I cropped this down to the P51, so as not to
> reveal too many details. I don't want to spoil everything! :)
>
> --
> GrimDude
> vos### [at] arkansasnet
>
> [Image]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
