Hi everyone.  Someone (or 2) had brought up the subject of "fire" once again,
so...
Here's two renders, first done with radiosity and second without (and a few
minor changes made).  The radiosity has promise but it sure changes everything
so I can't really judge by a non-radiosity rendering test.  All takes time as
you all know.  Anyway, 2h18m for radiosity, 1h33m without.  Two area lights
used and function 'func_9' for the isosurfaced logs, a turbulent gradient y
media for the fire itself.
Is it any good at all, is the question.  What do you think?  Never mind the
compression artifacts and general scene please  ;-)

Bob
--
omniVerse http://users.aol.com/persistenceofv/all.htm

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'fireplacertest.jpg' (29 KB)

Preview of image 'fireplacertest.jpg'

Bob Hughes rendered:
> [image]

I like the lighting in general in this scene, good job.
Area lights and radiosity together increase realism.

K.K.

Post a reply to this message

i dont know if its more like real fire, gas fire, or the ole demo scene fire
effect, either way it looks great, i tried fire a while back and never
managed to get anything worth posting..

Rick

Post a reply to this message

Hi,

the lower part of the fire look quite convincing, I think. Very nice logs!
The fire in front of the logs and the glowing look good.
IMO the actual flames look more like a series of candle flames (or those gas
flames witch should fake a real log-fire - but then they should be more
bluish). The one w/o radiosity is better though (there is some strange
'transparency' in the radiosity flames).
With such a bright and yellow glow in the logs, they should be much higher
and be more 'turbulence' in them (not necessary the povish kind of it). And
I think, the fire should cover the hole wood.

Anyway, I think it is a good starting point for the fire - but with those
rendertimes there is not so much room for try and error, is it?

Marc-Hendrik

Post a reply to this message

I forgot to mention 'noise3D()' was applied to the 'func_9' as well, please
excuse me if you ran right out and tried using that one and got a plain
ordinary log shape yourselves  :-)
Thanks for the replies thus far.  Helps a lot to hear anyone outside my own
thoughts.  I tried to get blue into the base of the flames with one media and
failed obviously.  Next attempt will be with 2 media combined.
I had to wonder of your comment Marc-Hendrik, I thought it looked overly
blazing already.  The top-near log is burning consumingly seemed to me so I
even tried to -- ahem -- water it down.
Yeah, the central brightness is too much for the smaller, dimmer, reddish
flames above, I agree.  The toughest part is how varied such things can be, no
too fires alike same as no two snowflakes...  Gas logs versus wood logs is
definitely something noticeable I believe.  Really don't know if I could ever
produce a render of the two kinds though.
Well, back to it now.  And thanks.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

Bob Hughes schrieb in Nachricht <3958aeac@news.povray.org>...
>I had to wonder of your comment Marc-Hendrik, I thought it looked overly
>blazing already.  The top-near log is burning consumingly seemed to me so I
>even tried to -- ahem -- water it down.


Hope I get that right :-)
It seems to me that your fire must burn some time already, because it is so
bright between the logs. In doing so, it would have fired the hole log from
'left to right' and I would suppose there were at least some flames or a
little glow at the end-'cabs'. Anyway, it is kind of nit-picking and it is
always easier to criticise.
My wife just fired up our fire-place and in there it is even so, that the
logs most of the time don't even burn in the middle but on the edges - but
we make more 'camp-fire'-like and cone-shaped fires in there. So I really
don't know if it would be the same with this 'layered logs'.

Hope this was a little bit clearer - if not, just ignore this part of my
last reply, please :~)

Marc-Hendrik

Post a reply to this message

Superb logs, nice fire - wish I was there!

Mick

"Bob Hughes" <per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote in message
news:395853f1@news.povray.org...
> Hi everyone.  Someone (or 2) had brought up the subject of "fire" once
again,
> so...
> Here's two renders, first done with radiosity and second without (and a
few
> minor changes made).  The radiosity has promise but it sure changes
everything
> so I can't really judge by a non-radiosity rendering test.  All takes time
as
> you all know.  Anyway, 2h18m for radiosity, 1h33m without.  Two area
lights
> used and function 'func_9' for the isosurfaced logs, a turbulent gradient
y
> media for the fire itself.
> Is it any good at all, is the question.  What do you think?  Never mind
the
> compression artifacts and general scene please  ;-)
>
> Bob
> --
> omniVerse http://users.aol.com/persistenceofv/all.htm
>
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Marc-Hendrik Bremer" <Mar### [at] t-onlinede> wrote in message
news:3958c8eb@news.povray.org...
| Bob Hughes schrieb in Nachricht <3958aeac@news.povray.org>...
| >I had to wonder of your comment Marc-Hendrik, I thought it looked overly
| >blazing already.  The top-near log is burning consumingly seemed to me so I
| >even tried to -- ahem -- water it down.
|
| Hope I get that right :-)
| It seems to me that your fire must burn some time already, because it is so
| bright between the logs. In doing so, it would have fired the hole log from
| 'left to right' and I would suppose there were at least some flames or a
| little glow at the end-'cabs'. Anyway, it is kind of nit-picking and it is
| always easier to criticise.
| My wife just fired up our fire-place and in there it is even so, that the
| logs most of the time don't even burn in the middle but on the edges - but
| we make more 'camp-fire'-like and cone-shaped fires in there. So I really
| don't know if it would be the same with this 'layered logs'.
|
| Hope this was a little bit clearer - if not, just ignore this part of my
| last reply, please :~)

I know what you are saying now, so I won't "ignore"  :-)
I'd have to guess that many times a fire burns only in the middle, non-dry
wood for example.  My knowledge of fireplaces and campfires is probably
average (maybe).
Attached is a new fire using a rotated (and a turbulent) 'marble' instead of
'gradient y' to try and get better variations front to back this time.  I
wouldn't call it a great success.  There are also two 'media' in one
'interior' to get the blue part below, and that needs to be diminished or
changed some.  Next I'll try a density_map instead, that should work out far
better.  This one was very slow to render, being about 1h45m for a smaller
res. and no AA; bad radiosity settings too.
I'm also going to move on to split logs instead of these whole ones.
Surprised no one mentioned that first thing.
Thanks for the comments.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'fprmarble.jpg' (14 KB)

Preview of image 'fprmarble.jpg'

"Mick Hazelgrove" <mic### [at] mhazelgrovefsnetcouk> wrote in message
news:3958f35a@news.povray.org...
| Superb logs, nice fire - wish I was there!

Well, you can't be.  No one can, if you know what I mean.  Thanks, hopefully
I'll get it to be satisfactory before I give up on it altogether.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

Bob Hughes wrote:

> Hi everyone.  Someone (or 2) had brought up the subject of "fire" once again,
> so...
> Here's two renders, first done with radiosity and second without (and a few
> minor changes made).  The radiosity has promise but it sure changes everything
> so I can't really judge by a non-radiosity rendering test.  All takes time as
> you all know.  Anyway, 2h18m for radiosity, 1h33m without.  Two area lights
> used and function 'func_9' for the isosurfaced logs, a turbulent gradient y
> media for the fire itself.
> Is it any good at all, is the question.  What do you think?  Never mind the
> compression artifacts and general scene please  ;-)

I don't know anything about radiosity or media, but I know that logs burn
better if they are stacked vertically and when there are several of them.

Nice flames. The ones in the bottom image looks best.


Tor Olav
--
mailto:tor### [at] hotmailcom
http://www.crosswinds.net/~tok/tokrays.html

Post a reply to this message