 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Better?
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'Falcon PP.jpg' (84 KB)
Preview of image 'Falcon PP.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OOOOOooooooohhhhh......
--
Bugs74
--------------------------------------------
http://pandaschool.tripod.com
"Zeger Knaepen" <zeg### [at] hotmail com> schreef in bericht
news:3972393d@news.povray.org...
: Better?
:
: ZK
: http://www.povplace.be.tf
:
:
:
:
:
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Magnificent... Dim the stars a little... The brightness seems to bring
them to the foreground...
Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> Better?
>
> ZK
> http://www.povplace.be.tf
>
> [Image]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Zeger Knaepen wrote:
>
> Better?
The really bright part of the exhaust might be sticking out a bit too
far, or shaped wrong, or something. It looks a little odd.
Other than that, though, gorgeous pic. :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wow.
- Doug Eichenberg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Xplo Eristotle" <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote in message
news:39726D57.621931DB@unforgettable.com...
> The really bright part of the exhaust might be sticking out a bit too
> far, or shaped wrong, or something. It looks a little odd.
It looks to me like the exhaust is wedge-shaped, and the reason it looks odd
is that, due to the camera angle, the right side of the ship is blocked by
the exhaust haze, and the left side isn't blocked. It looked odd to me at
first too, until I realized that; then it looked right. Did I mention that
this picture is amazing? Nice work, Zeger!
-Dave
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
almost perfect. more stars with wider intensity variation. is the
planet really round? it looks 2-d to me. is your main light the sun?
if so good. where is your fill light and how bright is it? i think it
may be a little too light in the shadows. and stars never twinkle on
star wars. in fact, i think the only way lens flare type objects would
work is in an animation as it passes in front of a sun. was anything
changed on the model or just the scene? have you thought about trying
the pipe mess macro for the areas where all the exposed piping is? i
think the movie model had a lot more of that than you currently have; i
was looking at my model as compared to the picture on the box (from the
movie) and found that to be the case. lookin' good.
Zeger Knaepen wrote:
>
> Better?
>
> ZK
> http://www.povplace.be.tf
>
> [Image]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Better?
hell yes!, that looks perfect :)
now - animate it !! (or post the source)
Rick
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> almost perfect.
Tnx.
> more stars with wider intensity variation. is the
I know. I realised it when the render was done.
> planet really round? it looks 2-d to me. is your main light the sun?
It's a sphere. Main light is the sun.
> if so good. where is your fill light and how bright is it? i think it
I think there are 3 fill lights: one at the place of the main light, but
with no_shadow and less bright, one on the opposite side (in X and Z) and
one on the same side as the second fill light, but opposite Y-coordinates.
And they might indeed be a little bit too bright.
> may be a little too light in the shadows. and stars never twinkle on
Yes, I know. I just started the rendering, and then I noticed those stars.
I thought I didn't include them. :-(
> star wars. in fact, i think the only way lens flare type objects would
> work is in an animation as it passes in front of a sun. was anything
> changed on the model or just the scene? have you thought about trying
No changes, only light- and camerasetup. And of course the planet. (And the
background, but that's not really important)
> the pipe mess macro for the areas where all the exposed piping is? i
I have thought about it, but I'm not going to do it.
I try to reproduce the real model, and with randomized piping, that's
impossible. The siding-details are randomized, and there is some random
detail on the hull, but they might be temporary.
> think the movie model had a lot more of that than you currently have; i
A bit, but not a lot. The engine-section should be more detailed.
> was looking at my model as compared to the picture on the box (from the
> movie) and found that to be the case. lookin' good.
A drawing? Don't trust them!
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rick [Kitty5] <ric### [at] kitty5com> schreef in berichtnieuws
3972c98f@news.povray.org...
>
> > Better?
>
> hell yes!, that looks perfect :)
Not perfect.
> now - animate it !! (or post the source)
It's not finished. The underside has no detail, no armor-plating, not even
the right textures.
> Rick
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> was anything
> changed on the model or just the scene?
I'm sorry. I *did* change some parts. The textures are a bit dirtier (?)
and less shiny.
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dave Blandston <gra### [at] earthlinknet> schreef in berichtnieuws
39729148$1@news.povray.org...
> "Xplo Eristotle" <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote in message
> news:39726D57.621931DB@unforgettable.com...
> > The really bright part of the exhaust might be sticking out a bit too
> > far, or shaped wrong, or something. It looks a little odd.
>
> It looks to me like the exhaust is wedge-shaped, and the reason it looks
odd
It is. But I added a glow in PSP.
> is that, due to the camera angle, the right side of the ship is blocked by
> the exhaust haze, and the left side isn't blocked. It looked odd to me at
> first too, until I realized that; then it looked right. Did I mention that
That's not good. If it looks odd first, there's something wrong. Maybe
I'll make the exhaust less obvious.
> this picture is amazing? Nice work, Zeger!
Tnx
> -Dave
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very nice.
I would imagine that the part of the ship around the exhaust would be darker
(almost black). Right now it looks brand new. Kind of like what you have
on the back-top around those 6 things, whatever they are.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> I'll make the exhaust less obvious.
Some turbulence would be nice.
K.K.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
do you have light fading set to two? you should as it models real
light. also, if you use only one fill light, say between the planet and
the ship, and also use radiosity, you should be able to see okay into
the shadows. which renderer do you use? if you use megapov, you can
use light groups and exclude your fill lights from affecting the planet.
Zeger Knaepen wrote:
>
> > almost perfect.
> Tnx.
>
> > more stars with wider intensity variation. is the
> I know. I realised it when the render was done.
>
> > planet really round? it looks 2-d to me. is your main light the sun?
> It's a sphere. Main light is the sun.
>
> > if so good. where is your fill light and how bright is it? i think it
> I think there are 3 fill lights: one at the place of the main light, but
> with no_shadow and less bright, one on the opposite side (in X and Z) and
> one on the same side as the second fill light, but opposite Y-coordinates.
> And they might indeed be a little bit too bright.
>
> > may be a little too light in the shadows. and stars never twinkle on
> Yes, I know. I just started the rendering, and then I noticed those stars.
> I thought I didn't include them. :-(
>
> > star wars. in fact, i think the only way lens flare type objects would
> > work is in an animation as it passes in front of a sun. was anything
> > changed on the model or just the scene? have you thought about trying
> No changes, only light- and camerasetup. And of course the planet. (And the
> background, but that's not really important)
>
> > the pipe mess macro for the areas where all the exposed piping is? i
> I have thought about it, but I'm not going to do it.
> I try to reproduce the real model, and with randomized piping, that's
> impossible. The siding-details are randomized, and there is some random
> detail on the hull, but they might be temporary.
>
> > think the movie model had a lot more of that than you currently have; i
> A bit, but not a lot. The engine-section should be more detailed.
>
> > was looking at my model as compared to the picture on the box (from the
> > movie) and found that to be the case. lookin' good.
> A drawing? Don't trust them!
>
> ZK
> http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Zeger Knaepen a écrit :
> Better?
>
Definitely.
But the hull looks too much like plastic ( too withe'ish'). Maybe darken
the color and decrease the roughness or increase the phong_size
somewhat.
Fabien Hénon
>
> ZK
> http://www.povplace.be.tf
>
> [Image]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <397### [at] yahoocom>, ryan constantine
<rco### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> do you have light fading set to two? you should as it models real
> light.
Since this is a space craft, and the nearest source of light is probably
a sun, light fading probably wouldn't make a noticeable difference. The
falloff curve would be so flat at this distance that there would be very
little difference in the intensity of light at each end of the ship.
However, lights on the ship itself could certainly benefit from this...
--
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] maccom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Better?
Quite. Now animate it. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ryan constantine <rco### [at] yahoocom> schreef in berichtnieuws
397### [at] yahoocom...
> do you have light fading set to two? you should as it models real
I have no light fading. I don't really think it's needed here.
> light. also, if you use only one fill light, say between the planet and
My fill light is as far as my main light. I think it gives a better
lighting. More even.
> the ship, and also use radiosity, you should be able to see okay into
I think radiosity would only slow things down. And with the fill lights I
used, I don't think I need radiosity.
(3 fill lights)
> the shadows. which renderer do you use? if you use megapov, you can
> use light groups and exclude your fill lights from affecting the planet.
I used light groups. If I didn't, the planet would have looked all blue :-)
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff <chr### [at] maccom> schreef in berichtnieuws
chrishuff-052260.17414217072000@news.povray.org...
> In article <397### [at] yahoocom>, ryan constantine
> <rco### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>
> > do you have light fading set to two? you should as it models real
> > light.
>
> Since this is a space craft, and the nearest source of light is probably
> a sun, light fading probably wouldn't make a noticeable difference. The
> falloff curve would be so flat at this distance that there would be very
> little difference in the intensity of light at each end of the ship.
>
> However, lights on the ship itself could certainly benefit from this...
There aro no lights on the ship. The Falcon has very few lights. There are
two on the forward mandibles, and some on the bottom, but I think that's
all.
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabien Hénon <ffj### [at] club-internetfr> schreef in berichtnieuws
39737B30.F04652D2@club-internet.fr...
> Definitely.
> But the hull looks too much like plastic ( too withe'ish'). Maybe darken
> the color and decrease the roughness or increase the phong_size
> somewhat.
The Falcon is really very white. And there are no specular hightlights, so
decreasing the roughness wouldn't do anything.
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tony[B] <ben### [at] panamac-comnet> schreef in berichtnieuws
39739ce9@news.povray.org...
> > Better?
>
> Quite. Now animate it. :)
At 5h per frame? Not until I have a Pentium IV 2GHz!
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:45:47 +0200, Zeger Knaepen wrote:
>Better?
>
A real beauty.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
1:38am up 3 days, 4 min, 2 users, load average: 1.65, 1.24, 1.08
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I like the prismatic affect on the right lower corner of the exhaust
glow..,
Kari Kivisalo wrote:
> Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> > I'll make the exhaust less obvious.
>
> Some turbulence would be nice.
>
> K.K.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sweet!
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
