 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
still no r2d2, but at least it's in space! three pics in one showing
a)no fill light for the xwing and thick emitting atmosphere (see post in
general), b)fill light in a group (per megapov) with .5 intensity and
medium atmosphere, and c)fill light in a group at intensity of 1 with
small atmosphere.
hopefully jpg is kind to these images...
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'threexwings.jpg' (52 KB)
Preview of image 'threexwings.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Of course #3 is best, even if not physically accurate. Shouldn't more
starlight (sunlight I mean here) be shining onto the far side of the x-wing?
Makes the thing look very dark. What distance scales are you at for this?
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
George Lucas would approve. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMHO I would go somewhere between 2 and 3. Lighting more towards 2, atmosphere
more towards 3.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricy net> ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
i think the planet was at the origin, the cam was 25000 units in the
(moray) -x direction, the area light star (no physical object) was
1496000 units in the -y direction (scaled down from 149600000000. i'm
not sure where i got that number), and the area light was 69600 from
center to edge (i think. also scaled down. i think i was originally
using realistic distances in meters of our sun and earth). by far side,
do you mean the top? i used radiosity but you see what i got.
actually, the originals were larger, and i actually used less than high
quality on the jpg compression, so maybe it was slightly lighter. i
know i said i was going to take a break from this model, but i haven't
been able to make myself. the textures are getting better and better.
i now have two different objects/textures for the engine thrust.
looking at the films, it seems they use both small and large glows, so i
have made just that. when one is used, the other is given a transparent
texture. i have also been coloring the nose, the fuselage front top,
the canopy, and the rings on the engine and rear gear covers. i also
added some brown to the overall dirt which adds nicely to the gray.
r2d2 should be done by the end of the week.
Bob Hughes wrote:
>
> Of course #3 is best, even if not physically accurate. Shouldn't more
> starlight (sunlight I mean here) be shining onto the far side of the x-wing?
> Makes the thing look very dark. What distance scales are you at for this?
>
> Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
i think i agree. from now on, i will make it so.
David Fontaine wrote:
>
> IMHO I would go somewhere between 2 and 3. Lighting more towards 2, atmosphere
> more towards 3.
>
> --
> David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
> Please visit my website: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"ryan constantine" <rco### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:396CE438.A5949BCF@yahoo.com...
| by far side,
| do you mean the top? i used radiosity but you see what i got.
Radiosity in the void of space is probably making it fairly dark anyhow. I was
talking of the lack
of sun-side brightness on the X-Wing, however I know it never seems easy to get a
light source to
shine on something like this the way you expect to see it, or way I expect to see it
anyway.
Reasons to me that you should be able to see a "clouds silver lining" effect, even if
this is
airless space, just not as diffused around into the shadows. Even so, radiosity ought
to brighten
nearby shadowed parts which are glowing from lit parts. Mainly it doesn't appear to
have any much
of any visible direct light showing, but that could only be so if the sun (star) were
in the line
of sight.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
