 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ryan constantine <rco### [at] yahoo com> schreef in berichtnieuws
396FC34C.7356CE12@yahoo.com...
> good job! care to share textures? it might be educational. what did
When it's finished, I'll share the source.
> you use as a guide? what scale are you using? my xwing is 1 unit = 1
I used The Essential Guide Te Vehicles And Vessels and *lots* of pictures
found on the net. I don't really know what scale I'm using. The same scale
I used for my previous model, but I don't think it's an easy-to-convert
scale ... :-(
> meter which makes the length 12.5 meters. i have the falcon model and
> thought about doing this too. how much more detail are you going to
Length is a problem with the Falcon. Some say it's 28m, some say it's 35m
or anything in between...
> add? did you use a modeller? is anything animatable (landing gear,
Purely hand-coded. Nothing is animatable right now. There is no landing
gear and the radar-dish is temporary (but a bit animatable).
> radar dish, laser cannons, engine thrust, top hatch, main door)? is the
The laser-cannons are temporary too. You can set the brightness of the
engines thrust. The tophatch is not animatable. Maybe in the future. The
maindoor isn't even modelled yet.
> top surface actually divided into many seperate plates? is that how you
The armor-plating is there, yes.
> got the localized dirtiness? i've started working on r2d2 as well as
Yep. I used an image-pattern for it.
> planetary (or death star) explosions. i also plan on modelling the
> death star (using sets like the movie; close, far, trench).
Wow. That's a good idea! Looks like StarWars: The POV-Ray Collection is
going to live again!
> > Oh, yeah... The stats:
> >
> > 2619 frame level objects
> > Peak memory used: 9602538 bytes
> > Time For Parse: 3s
> > Time For Trace: 4h 40m 14s
> > GUI-priority: Highest
> > Render-priority: Lowest
> > On a PIII 450 with 64 MB RAM under W98SE
>
>
> how did you get your parse time so low with so many objects in the
> scene? are there any meshes or patches? my current object count is
All CSG. No height_fields, no isosurfaces. I don't know how it can be
parsed so fast. I don't really care, actually :-)
> over 1300. you've got double that but mine takes 15 sec to parse.
> hmmmm...
Strange... Maybe becaused I used a lot of loops and some macros (for the
armor plating)?
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
\On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 14:38:51 +0200, Zeger Knaepen wrote...
> > > Oh, yeah... The stats:
> > >
> > > 2619 frame level objects
> > > Peak memory used: 9602538 bytes
> > > Time For Parse: 3s
> > > Time For Trace: 4h 40m 14s
> > > GUI-priority: Highest
> > > Render-priority: Lowest
> > > On a PIII 450 with 64 MB RAM under W98SE
> >
> >
> > how did you get your parse time so low with so many objects in the
> > scene? are there any meshes or patches? my current object count is
> All CSG. No height_fields, no isosurfaces. I don't know how it can be
> parsed so fast. I don't really care, actually :-)
>
> > over 1300. you've got double that but mine takes 15 sec to parse.
> > hmmmm...
> Strange... Maybe becaused I used a lot of loops and some macros (for the
> armor plating)?
The difference in parse time could easily be due to the fact that Ryan
has used patches for the main hull of the X-Wing. Depending on the
subdivision settings used, patch objects can take ages to parse (I speak
from experience :)
I could be wrong, of course <grin>
Bye for now,
Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Zeger,
This is a wonderful model. The only beef I've got is with the lighting.
Let me share a secret with you. The secret to great lighting is to *never*
(and I do mean never) put a main light *anywhere* near the camera. This
mistake is what makes those newbie 3DS and Lightwave rendering look so
crappy.Here is what I suggest.
FaintFillLight Main Light
Object
Camera
This is a top view of a lighting scheme that works pretty well. The faint,
"fill" light (try <.2,.2,.25> and shadowless) would be at your current main
light location. Take the main light you have now and move it over to the
other side of the model. Also, bring it closer to the front. You can even
leave the intensity at 1.5. Or, alternatively, you could change the
intensity to 1 and make a .5, shadowless, light at the same location. This
will give a slight radiosity effect with no render overhead.
I'm sorry if I sounded preachy, but this is the single lighting mistake
that bugs me the most.
H.E. Day
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Zeger Knaepen" <zeg### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:39705746$1@news.povray.org...
| Bob Hughes <per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:> schreef in
| berichtnieuws 396fb7d6@news.povray.org...
|
| > Fabulous job of it. Animated in a action scene this detail would suffice
| pretty well, don't you
| > think?
| Hmmm... 4h per frame... That's a lot of time. Even at 640*480 it still is
| about 3h per frame.
You could always just try to imagine it is in an action scene then. Or use a
tiny, microscopic, resolution.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Actually the main light is *very* far away :-)
Don't worry, I don't make such mistakes. I know that a sun is very far
away.
It's the intensity of the light that isn't good.
Wait a minute, I'll answer in your text :-)
H. E. Day <Pov### [at] aolcom> schreef in berichtnieuws
01bfee6e$85828540$107889d0@daysix...
> Zeger,
> This is a wonderful model. The only beef I've got is with the lighting.
Tnx!
> Let me share a secret with you. The secret to great lighting is to
*never*
Wow, a secret, always nice :-)
> (and I do mean never) put a main light *anywhere* near the camera. This
I know. I do this only when testing my objects...
> mistake is what makes those newbie 3DS and Lightwave rendering look so
> crappy.Here is what I suggest.
Hmmm... Are you saying this render looks crappy?
:-(
> FaintFillLight Main Light
> Object
>
> Camera
>
Wait a minute... You put the main light on the other side of the model...
That way the camera is looking at an unlit side...
That's quite dark, isn't it?
> This is a top view of a lighting scheme that works pretty well. The
faint,
> "fill" light (try <.2,.2,.25> and shadowless) would be at your current
main
Ah, like that... I have fill lights, but they are on the other side. (and
also very far away :-)
> light location. Take the main light you have now and move it over to the
> other side of the model. Also, bring it closer to the front. You can
even
> leave the intensity at 1.5. Or, alternatively, you could change the
> intensity to 1 and make a .5, shadowless, light at the same location.
This
> will give a slight radiosity effect with no render overhead.
Good idea. I'll try this.
>
> I'm sorry if I sounded preachy, but this is the single lighting mistake
> that bugs me the most.
np
Always nice to hear some comments from an expert. Even when they aren't all
that positive.
You see: I rather hear you say it's crap when you mean it, than say it's
good when you don't mean it.
> H.E. Day
> <><
Here's an idea: I give you the model and you turn it into an awesome image.
Whadayasay?
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> You could always just try to imagine it is in an action scene then. Or
use a
> tiny, microscopic, resolution.
Or let it render while I'm on vacation. When I come back (2 weeks later)
I'll see it has finally reached frame 10 of 100 :-)
> Bob
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
H. E. Day <Pov### [at] aolcom> schreef in berichtnieuws
01bfee6e$85828540$107889d0@daysix...
> Let me share a secret with you. The secret to great lighting is to
*never*
Oh, BTW: by saying it on this NG it's not a secret anymore :-)
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Zeger Knaepen" <zeg### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:39705665$1@news.povray.org...
> Completely hand-coded.
One word: "Damn."
--
Paul Vanukoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Paul Vanukoff <van### [at] primenetcom> schreef in berichtnieuws
3970bb5c$1@news.povray.org...
>
>
> One word: "Damn."
Why? It's a lot easier than using Moray! You can use macros, while-loops
and randomized objects!
> --
> Paul Vanukoff
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
no, you are right. i just finished (for now) converting my xwing files
to plain pov and uploaded them to the star wars pov site. they should
be up soon. in the package is an image with six xwings, all with
different squad colors and numbers and with different dirt, wings open
or closed, canopy open or closed, etc. like most include files, there
are variables that the user declares and then includes the inc.
however, i used two meshes and those are included only once in the
user's scene file. i found that parsing after the first model was only
about 4 or 5 seconds. so the slowdown is due to my meshes and patches.
Jamie Davison wrote:
>
> \On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 14:38:51 +0200, Zeger Knaepen wrote...
> > > > Oh, yeah... The stats:
> > > >
> > > > 2619 frame level objects
> > > > Peak memory used: 9602538 bytes
> > > > Time For Parse: 3s
> > > > Time For Trace: 4h 40m 14s
> > > > GUI-priority: Highest
> > > > Render-priority: Lowest
> > > > On a PIII 450 with 64 MB RAM under W98SE
> > >
> > >
> > > how did you get your parse time so low with so many objects in the
> > > scene? are there any meshes or patches? my current object count is
> > All CSG. No height_fields, no isosurfaces. I don't know how it can be
> > parsed so fast. I don't really care, actually :-)
> >
> > > over 1300. you've got double that but mine takes 15 sec to parse.
> > > hmmmm...
> > Strange... Maybe becaused I used a lot of loops and some macros (for the
> > armor plating)?
>
> The difference in parse time could easily be due to the fact that Ryan
> has used patches for the main hull of the X-Wing. Depending on the
> subdivision settings used, patch objects can take ages to parse (I speak
> from experience :)
>
> I could be wrong, of course <grin>
>
> Bye for now,
> Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
