Christoph Hormann wrote in message
<397EBE9B.CF6DDBCA@schunter.etc.tu-bs.de>...
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>most of the features are quite conventional, no media, no isosurfaces.  I'm
not
>going to publish the whole scene, but if you are interested in a specific
>element, that should not be the problem.
>
>Christoph
>


I'd be very interested to see the texture for the distant mountains. I
haven't
had much success with slope dependent textures.

Thanks
Gail
********************************************************************
* gsh### [at] monotixcoza              * Reality.dat not found         *
* http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~gail/ * Attempting to reboot universe *
********************************************************************
* The best way to accelerate Windows NT is at 9.8 m/s^2      *
********************************************************************

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:
> 
> 
> I'd be very interested to see the texture for the distant mountains. I
> haven't
> had much success with slope dependent textures.
> 

Oh, that's really simple:

#declare T_ARCTIC_01 =
texture{
    slope -z
    texture_map{   
      [0.1 T_SnowA ] //flatter 
      [0.1 T_Rock ]  //steeper
    }
}

in left handed system, you would use slope y.

I use different settings for  T_SnowA and T_Rock for w/o radiosity and changing
the values quite often, good values are also dependant on the lighting
situation. 

one example (i think i used this for the radiosity version):

#declare T_SnowA = 
texture {
   pigment { rgb 1 }   
   finish {             
      ambient 0.0
      diffuse 0.6 
      specular 0.3              
      roughness 0.6             
      brilliance 0.4
   }
}  

Christoph

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

Post a reply to this message

Hi Christoph, great scene!

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> 
> Marc-Hendrik Bremer wrote:
> >
> > Wow, I really like this one! Any change to see some code? I never tried most
> > of the features you used here and I would be glad to see them in action.
> > I really, really like it ....
> >
> > Marc-Hendrik
> >
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> most of the features are quite conventional, no media, no isosurfaces.  I'm not
> going to publish the whole scene, but if you are interested in a specific
> element, that should not be the problem.

Ha, if this is so then let me ask for the most secret part
of the scene ;-)
Any chance to get the parameters of the RMFs? (I guess it's
a superposition of more than one RMF, right?)

Two other things that come to mind: Scaling down the ice floes
by say 0.5 or 0.3 would make the mountains look more majestic.
And then: Wouldn't the moving water leave dark areas on the snow
near the water line?

Well, I'm nitpicking, I know ...

-Hans-

Post a reply to this message

Hans-Detlev Fink wrote:
> 
> Hi Christoph, great scene!
> 

Thanks.

> 
> Ha, if this is so then let me ask for the most secret part
> of the scene ;-)
> Any chance to get the parameters of the RMFs? (I guess it's
> a superposition of more than one RMF, right?)

No, it's one simple RMF:

H: 0.1
lacunarity: 3.1
octaves: 8
offset: 0.7
gain: 0.8

But it's generated with a seperate program using a different random number
generator, so results will not be the same in POV :-)

> 
> Two other things that come to mind: Scaling down the ice floes
> by say 0.5 or 0.3 would make the mountains look more majestic.

maybe, i will think about it...

> And then: Wouldn't the moving water leave dark areas on the snow
> near the water line?
> 

I'm already working on that.


Christoph

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

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:06:40 +0200, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
>last night i rendered a version with radiosity, took about 6 hours, here is the
>result, it's much more blueish, but i somehow like it too.  
>
>http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/arctic_a03.jpg

Probably won't get to see this as I'll have to dial in 
especially to see it. 

-- 
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

 10:36pm  up 11 days, 21:02,  2 users,  load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00

Post a reply to this message

Steve wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:06:40 +0200, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> >
> >last night i rendered a version with radiosity, took about 6 hours, here is the
> >result, it's much more blueish, but i somehow like it too.
> >
> >http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/arctic_a03.jpg
> 
> Probably won't get to see this as I'll have to dial in
> especially to see it.
> 

Oh i'm sorry, but are you not curious enough to do that ?

I just did not want to occupy space with so many versions of the same scene.  If
you really have problems, I can send it via email :-)

Christoph

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

Post a reply to this message

Thanks for the parms, Christoph!

This is interesting. Just out of curiosity: Why do you use
an external program? Speed?
And how does this prog interface to pov? Do you import the
result as a height-field?
I found that iso's get _very_ slow when superposing eg 3 or
more RMFs, so using an external prog might speed it up a lot.

Eagerly waiting for Icy Coast 4 ...

-Hans-

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> 
> Hans-Detlev Fink wrote:
> >
> > Hi Christoph, great scene!
> >
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> >
> > Ha, if this is so then let me ask for the most secret part
> > of the scene ;-)
> > Any chance to get the parameters of the RMFs? (I guess it's
> > a superposition of more than one RMF, right?)
> 
> No, it's one simple RMF:
> 
> H: 0.1
> lacunarity: 3.1
> octaves: 8
> offset: 0.7
> gain: 0.8
> 
> But it's generated with a seperate program using a different random number
> generator, so results will not be the same in POV :-)
> 
> >
> > Two other things that come to mind: Scaling down the ice floes
> > by say 0.5 or 0.3 would make the mountains look more majestic.
> 
> maybe, i will think about it...
> 
> > And then: Wouldn't the moving water leave dark areas on the snow
> > near the water line?
> >
> 
> I'm already working on that.
> 
> Christoph
> 
> --
> Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
> Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

Hans-Detlev Fink wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the parms, Christoph!
> 
> This is interesting. Just out of curiosity: Why do you use
> an external program? Speed?

It's faster to try different parameters and also easier.

In povray you have to render the scene to see the result.  Furthermore, if you
do not like a particular arrangement, you have to do some translate stuff to get
something different, I only have to take a different random seed.  

> And how does this prog interface to pov? Do you import the
> result as a height-field?

Yes.

> I found that iso's get _very_ slow when superposing eg 3 or
> more RMFs, so using an external prog might speed it up a lot.

As i already said, i currently only use one RMF.  In my program, superposing 3
calculations would require 3x the time.  I expect, it's the same with an
isosurface.   

> 
> Eagerly waiting for Icy Coast 4 ...
> 

It will probably come... sometime

Christoph

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

Post a reply to this message

Iceberg Lake, Glacier-Waterton...
Looks like a HF?

--
David Fontaine     <dav### [at] faricynet>     ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

Post a reply to this message

> Looks like a HF?

Of course, I missed that in the original

--
David Fontaine     <dav### [at] faricynet>     ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

Post a reply to this message