www.shhh.com Thank you...

Post a reply to this message

#declare Reputation[Ross] = Reputation[Ross] * 0;

Ross Litscher wrote:

> aS someone mentioned sUPertit in rEfeRence to the image of some recursive
> ball thingie posteD recently, somethIng much more vuLgar and sexually
> disturbing comes to minD. but alas, i need to keep a gOod reputation around
> here so I won't say anything.

Post a reply to this message

Has a distinctly coral fell to it.

Ken Matassa

Post a reply to this message

Larry

This has already been done.  Check Giles Trand's tree macro
on his web site The Book Of Beginnings, I don't have the
URL, but it'll be on Ken's page. 


-- 
Cheers
Steve              email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk

%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps. 

web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjeln/

or  http://start.at/zero-pps

Post a reply to this message

Good work. I'm sure you can see that even with the randomness it is not
enough. Smaller parts of the tree are still too similar to the whole. There
needs to be more randomness in the lengths and diameters of each branch, and
then you get the very fun job of putting leaves on the whole thing.

I'm sure you will get a more realistic texture on it as well. I've been
playing with recursive macros for a while, but I haven't got the hang of them
myself.

Don't be detracted by people saying that Gilles has made the ultimate tree
macro (Well, he has, in my opinion) but the purpose is to do it yourself,
right?

Keep up the good work.

Josh English
eng### [at] spiritonecom
icq 1946299
"Stress is when you wake up screaming and realize you haven't fallen asleep
yet."

Larry Fontaine wrote:

> I'm working on a blob-tree-generating macro. I'm surprised I was
> actually able to write the basic shell in so little time! It has the
> same number of limbs branching off at each joint. You can specify the
> recursion level, the angle offset of a limb from its parent, the number
> of branches at each joint, the extent of randomization for the end
> vertex of each limb, the ammount of "bumpiness" on the limbs, the ratio
> of the radius for child limbs, the ratio of the length for child limbs,
> the ratio of the  diameters at the start and end of a limb "cone value",
> the number of components in each limb, the start-coords and end-coords
> of the the trunk, and the starting seed values. With no randomization
> settings, the child limbs would be evnly rotated, ie, if the parent limb
> sticks straight up, then at 3 children the child limbs would point to
> 12:00, 4:00 and 8:00, 120 degrees apart on y-rotation. All of these are
> then rotated by a random amount, regardless of rand. values sent, but
> stay evenly spaced, ie they may end up pointing to 3:00, 7:00 and 11:00.
> I would like to implement random curviness in the limbs (you may have
> seen my post in general) and, of course, leaves and possibly roots. It
> would also be nice if I could avoid branch intersection, but I think
> that may be a tad too difficult.
> This particular tree is 4 levels, 4 braches, 0.6 "cone value", 0.6 on
> both ratios, 50 degrees from parent, 0.4 end-position-randomness, 20
> components per limb, 0.3 bumpiness, 0.3 trunk radius, and 0 for all
> seeds.
>
> ------
> DAF
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

Steve wrote:
> 
> Larry
> 
> This has already been done.  

So?
Gilles is not the only one who's allowed to have fun, is he? 
;)

Check Giles Trand's tree macro
> on his web site The Book Of Beginnings, I don't have the
> URL, but it'll be on Ken's page.
> 
> --
> Cheers
> Steve              email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk
> 

Tree macro's can be fun to make and are a very good learning subject.

Remco

Post a reply to this message

Josh English wrote:
> 
> Good work. I'm sure you can see that even with the randomness it is not
> enough. Smaller parts of the tree are still too similar to the whole. There
> needs to be more randomness in the lengths and diameters of each branch, and
> then you get the very fun job of putting leaves on the whole thing.
> 
> I'm sure you will get a more realistic texture on it as well. I've been
> playing with recursive macros for a while, but I haven't got the hang of them
> myself.
> 
> Don't be detracted by people saying that Gilles has made the ultimate tree
> macro (Well, he has, in my opinion) but the purpose is to do it yourself,
> right?
> 
> Keep up the good work.
> 
> Josh English
> eng### [at] spiritonecom
> icq 1946299
> "Stress is when you wake up screaming and realize you haven't fallen asleep
> yet."
> 

I have tried Gilles tree macro and it _is_ fabulous.
About blob trees I wonder: what'll happen if you have branches crossing?
Obviously they'll blob together. I've tried to make a macro based on a principle
that should avoid this: work from the outside inwards. It was a lot of work to
get it right and it needs a lot of parsing time but when you finally see the
tree it doesn't make any difference. Still, it was fun to do. 

Everyone should/could make his or her own tree.

Cheers,

Remco

Post a reply to this message

Yes and I don't care

Steve wrote:

> Larry
>
> This has already been done.  Check Giles Trand's tree macro
> on his web site The Book Of Beginnings, I don't have the
> URL, but it'll be on Ken's page.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Steve              email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk
>
> %HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps.
>
> web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjeln/
>
> or  http://start.at/zero-pps

Post a reply to this message

Gilles has not made THE ultimate tree macro. The ULTIMATE treemaker is Tree
Designer, but you have to buy it :-(

(OK, I guess Tree Designer isn't a macro, so you're right...)

Josh English wrote:

> Good work. I'm sure you can see that even with the randomness it is not
> enough. Smaller parts of the tree are still too similar to the whole. There
> needs to be more randomness in the lengths and diameters of each branch, and
> then you get the very fun job of putting leaves on the whole thing.
>
> I'm sure you will get a more realistic texture on it as well. I've been
> playing with recursive macros for a while, but I haven't got the hang of them
> myself.
>
> Don't be detracted by people saying that Gilles has made the ultimate tree
> macro (Well, he has, in my opinion) but the purpose is to do it yourself,
> right?
>
> Keep up the good work.
>
> Josh English
> eng### [at] spiritonecom
> icq 1946299
> "Stress is when you wake up screaming and realize you haven't fallen asleep
> yet."

Post a reply to this message

Josh English wrote:

> Don't be detracted by people saying that Gilles has made the ultimate tree
> macro (Well, he has, in my opinion) but the purpose is to do it yourself,
> right?
>

...and there were already many tree macros when I did mine (which I'm in the
process of updating) and there is also Tom Aust's wonderful macro
(http://www.aust-anfertigungen.de/), TreeDesigner and a long list of commercial
programs used by the big boys. To be frank, I don't think there's such a thing as
an ultimate tree macro, because the sheer number of parameters and the parsing
time required for such a macro would make it quite impractical. But tree macros
are fun to create (I learnt a lot while doing mine) and to use, and give good
results if you don't compare them to the real thing.
The following paper was written by the people who make xfrog and may be of
interest for anyone who is interested in the implementation of realistic plant
structures (individual plants or plantations)
http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/ecosys/
Welcome to the club !
G.

Post a reply to this message