Yann Ramin wrote:
> 
> Ok, that just looks good (the mountains).  How did you do those?  I love
> how the snow sort matches the hillside and has texture.
> 
> Yann

The mountains are ridged multifractal as a heightfield with megapov's slope
pattern for the texture.  There were some similar mountains here in the past,
you could also do that with isosurfaces, but then you have difficulties with
manual modifications of the shape.  

Christoph

--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" <Chr### [at] schunteretctu-bsde> wrote in
message news:397BF321.359C11A8@schunter.etc.tu-> > > A polar bear... =)
(said Rune)
> > > > A penguin or another animal could be the final touch (said Moon47)

Thanks to both Rune And Moon47, i will think about an animal, even though i
> never modelled something like that and i hate using other peoples' models
:-)
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
> Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Just 'bear' in mind -- polar bears live at the north pole and penguins at
the south pole and would never meet in the wild.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 00:20:26 +0200, Christoph Hormann
<Chr### [at] schunteretctu-bsde> wrote:

>Comments welcome, I am not content with the textures, anyone who has experience
>with icy materials ? 

It needs a gust of wind to blow the snow around. It also needs Tux :)


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] usanet
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

In article <397BF542.F09F93D3@schunter.etc.tu-bs.de>, 
chr### [at] gmxde wrote:

> The water is just taken from what i had, I agree about your points on 
> that. 

And one more thing: variable reflection.


> Radiosity is not my strong side :-) There is already one fill light 
> in the scene.

The radiosity in MegaPOV doesn't need much tweaking for most 
scenes...just copy-pasting the values from one of the sample scenes 
often works.


> Yeah, i already thought about media, thats probably the only way to 
> get the milky translucency of ice. 

Maybe just adding greenish-blueish areas on the sides would work...or 
make the sides partly transparent and fill it with a blue-green emitting 
media.


> That's the problem with the crackle-texture, I not yet have any idea 
> how to solve that (maybe I have to remove them by hand :-( )

Hmm, they wouldn't look so out of place if there was a bunch of small 
ice chunks and slush around them...and don't forget that you could just 
use CSG to remove them. Or you could output an image for the height 
field and edit that.


> Right now, i use a heightfield, so that would be a problem, maybe i 
> should change it to an isosurface, but that would no more allow 
> manual changes.

Well, first, what do you mean by "manual changes"? I don't think there 
is anything you can do with height fields that can't be done with 
isosurfaces...
Anyway, it shouldn't be too hard to add your own ice floe. Just leave 
the current ones where they are, and put one as a separate object in 
front of the camera.

-- 
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

Chris Huff wrote:
> 
[...] 
> And one more thing: variable reflection.

Already there, but you do not see much of it.

> 
> The radiosity in MegaPOV doesn't need much tweaking for most
> scenes...just copy-pasting the values from one of the sample scenes
> often works.
> 

I tried that and it did not change anything...

> 
> Maybe just adding greenish-blueish areas on the sides would work...or
> make the sides partly transparent and fill it with a blue-green emitting
> media.

See my second version, I did not yet try media, but even without, it works quite
well.  

> 
> > That's the problem with the crackle-texture, I not yet have any idea
> > how to solve that (maybe I have to remove them by hand :-( )
> 
> Hmm, they wouldn't look so out of place if there was a bunch of small
> ice chunks and slush around them...and don't forget that you could just
> use CSG to remove them. Or you could output an image for the height
> field and edit that.

That's exactly what i'm doing all the time :-) I also thought about smaller ice
pieces, would be not that difficult to add them, but I'm not sure whether they
would look good.  

> 
> > Right now, i use a heightfield, so that would be a problem, maybe i
> > should change it to an isosurface, but that would no more allow
> > manual changes.
> 
> Well, first, what do you mean by "manual changes"? I don't think there
> is anything you can do with height fields that can't be done with
> isosurfaces...

I meant removing some parts/selective changes.  For example i removed some part
of the mountain HF behind the camera casting shadows on the foreground.  Of
course you could have removed them from isosurface with CSG operations, but that
would be much more difficult.  

> Anyway, it shouldn't be too hard to add your own ice floe. Just leave
> the current ones where they are, and put one as a separate object in
> front of the camera.
> 

I already considered that, it would need a different viewpoint/view direction
but I will give it a try...

Thanks for your suggestions, even though I'm not sure whether i will have time
to try everything in the next days ...

Christoph

--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

In article <397CA4E9.60BAF6F5@schunter.etc.tu-bs.de>, 
chr### [at] gmxde wrote:

> That's exactly what i'm doing all the time :-) I also thought about 
> smaller ice pieces, would be not that difficult to add them, but I'm 
> not sure whether they would look good.  

Basically what I am talking about is floating lumps of snow and 
slush...bits of stuff which sheared off when the floes separated and 
bumped into each other. Right now it seems strange that the floes 
separated cleanly, without smaller pieces breaking off.


> I meant removing some parts/selective changes.  For example i removed 
> some part of the mountain HF behind the camera casting shadows on the 
> foreground.  Of course you could have removed them from isosurface 
> with CSG operations, but that would be much more difficult.  

But that doesn't answer my real question...what "manual changes" 
wouldn't be possible with isosurfaces? Why would CSG be needed with 
isosurfaces, but not with height fields?

-- 
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

Chris Huff wrote:
> 
> 
> Basically what I am talking about is floating lumps of snow and
> slush...bits of stuff which sheared off when the floes separated and
> bumped into each other. Right now it seems strange that the floes
> separated cleanly, without smaller pieces breaking off.
> 

I already understood that :-) just did not yet have time to work it out.

[...]
> 
> But that doesn't answer my real question...what "manual changes"
> wouldn't be possible with isosurfaces? Why would CSG be needed with
> isosurfaces, but not with height fields?
>

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, I meant painting away certain structures in the
heightfield file, that i do not like.  Of course you do not neccessarily need
CSG to do that with isosurfaces, you could change the isosurface function, but
it would never be that simple IMO.

Christoph

--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 09:41:21 +0200, Christoph Hormann wrote...
> > > > A penguin or another animal could be the final touch.
> > > >
> > > > Greetings,
> > > >
> > > > Rune
> 
> Thanks to both Rune And Moon47, i will think about an animal, even though i
> never modelled something like that and i hate using other peoples' models :-)

Well, I have a copy of the sPatch model of Tux (the Linux penguin) that 
was posted on one of these NG's a while back if you want it <grin>

I've also got it as a textured Moray file if that's of any use.

(BTW, this is not an overly serious suggestion :)

Bye for now,
     Jamie.

Post a reply to this message

In article <397CB7A2.9E5A045C@schunter.etc.tu-bs.de>, 
chr### [at] gmxde wrote:

> Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, I meant painting away certain 
> structures in the heightfield file, that i do not like.  Of course 
> you do not neccessarily need CSG to do that with isosurfaces, you 
> could change the isosurface function, but it would never be that 
> simple IMO.

I still don't understand...what is stopping you from painting away those 
structures and using the image in an isosurface? There are a couple ways 
you could do it...image_pattern, image_map. Just use a pigment function.

-- 
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

Chris Huff wrote:
> 
[...]
> 
> I still don't understand...what is stopping you from painting away those
> structures and using the image in an isosurface? There are a couple ways
> you could do it...image_pattern, image_map. Just use a pigment function.
> 

<light going on> Aha! Now i got it :-) But what would be the difference except
it would be slower, wouldn't it ? Of course you could apply additional functions
to the iso like nonlinear scaling, cylindrical mapping, ...  

Christoph

--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message