Since the animation was so garbled I figure a nice still image should be
uploaded.

Bob
--
omniVerse http://users.aol.com/persistenceofv/all.htm

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'flitemountainlakes.jpg' (39 KB)

Preview of image 'flitemountainlakes.jpg'

Great work!

The water could be a bit darker (or is it ice?) The mountains are isosurface? is
it pure RMF or with some additional function?

How about some peak very near in the foreground ?

Christoph

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

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:47:30 -0500, Bob Hughes wrote:
>Since the animation was so garbled I figure a nice still image should be
>uploaded.

Looks a bit like the Pyrenees but these mountains are a bit smaller.
The grassy area looks too smooth, even at this distance you'd see much 
more turbulence and unevenness there.  
   
If the camera was much higher up then the grass may look OK. 

Nice work, thanks for sharing. 

-- 
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

 10:47am  up 12 days,  9:13,  1 user,  load average: 1.00, 1.02, 1.07

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" <Chr### [at] schunteretctu-bsde> wrote in
message news:397### [at] schunteretctu-bsde...
|
| The water could be a bit darker (or is it ice?) The mountains are
isosurface? is
| it pure RMF or with some additional function?
|
| How about some peak very near in the foreground ?

A lot to choose from that's for sure.
You guessed right, it's ice covered lakes at the beginning of the current
animation I'm doing, then the snow and ice melts off during it in a
unrealistic sort of way.  I've never seen time-lapse done during a flyover.
Plain RMF, nothing else manipulating the isosurface unless you count the
slope-dependant texturing. Lakes are a single plane throughout.  I made the
mistake of scaling the texture on that so the water/ice surfaces all moved
in a strange way toward <0,0,0>.
Glad you liked.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

"Steve" <ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet> wrote in message
news:slr### [at] zero-ppslocaldomain...
| On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:47:30 -0500, Bob Hughes wrote:
| >Since the animation was so garbled I figure a nice still image should be
| >uploaded.
|
| Looks a bit like the Pyrenees but these mountains are a bit smaller.
| The grassy area looks too smooth, even at this distance you'd see much
| more turbulence and unevenness there.
|
| If the camera was much higher up then the grass may look OK.

Yep, if you have seen the description of the animation I explain that the
textures had caused a jittering effect, much like 'crand' had been added to
the finish, but no AA or crand was used.  To remedy I have switched to a
very flat texture for dirt, rock, grass and trees.  I thought about adding
actual tree objects someday but the grass would most likely remain texture
alone.

| Nice work, thanks for sharing.

Thanks back.  I was thinking these looked like some kind of mountains I had
seen in pictures/television before.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

Bob, see my question about Slope dependent texturing in p.g.

--
I get paid to do -anything- while connected to the internet.
Please use my referral id to find out more
http://www.getpaid4.com/?billdewitt
"Bob Hughes" <per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote in message
news:39802342@news.povray.org...
> "Steve" <ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet> wrote in message
> news:slr### [at] zero-ppslocaldomain...
> | On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:47:30 -0500, Bob Hughes wrote:
> | >Since the animation was so garbled I figure a nice still image should
be
> | >uploaded.
> |
> | Looks a bit like the Pyrenees but these mountains are a bit smaller.
> | The grassy area looks too smooth, even at this distance you'd see much
> | more turbulence and unevenness there.
> |
> | If the camera was much higher up then the grass may look OK.
>
> Yep, if you have seen the description of the animation I explain that the
> textures had caused a jittering effect, much like 'crand' had been added
to
> the finish, but no AA or crand was used.  To remedy I have switched to a
> very flat texture for dirt, rock, grass and trees.  I thought about adding
> actual tree objects someday but the grass would most likely remain texture
> alone.
>
> | Nice work, thanks for sharing.
>
> Thanks back.  I was thinking these looked like some kind of mountains I
had
> seen in pictures/television before.
>
> Bob
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Wonderful. How many objects are we seeing--I'd be even more impressed if it
were only one!

Also, doesn't this just blow away the concept of heightfields--wouldn't it
be impossible to make a non-hideous flythrough if these were mere
heightfields and one lacked a Cray?

Bob Hughes wrote:

> Since the animation was so garbled I figure a nice still image should be
> uploaded.
>
> Bob
> --
> omniVerse http://users.aol.com/persistenceofv/all.htm
>
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

Bob Hughes wrote:
> 
[...]
> You guessed right, it's ice covered lakes at the beginning of the current
> animation I'm doing, then the snow and ice melts off during it in a
> unrealistic sort of way.  I've never seen time-lapse done during a flyover.

How about employing the RMF function for the ice too, so that the ice is melting
in the middle first and later on the coast.

Christoph

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

Post a reply to this message

> Since the animation was so garbled I figure a nice still image should be
> uploaded.

you figured right :)

Rick

Post a reply to this message

In article <397fcd4c@news.povray.org>, "Bob Hughes" 
<per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote:

> Since the animation was so garbled I figure a nice still image should be
> uploaded.

Looks like a recently terraformed low-gravity planet...I don't think 
mountains like that would survive long in an atmosphere.

Great job...have you tried making bare rock on near-vertical surfaces? 
It looks like a lot of the snow is clinging to very steep slopes.

-- 
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

"Christoph Hormann" <Chr### [at] schunteretctu-bsde> wrote in
message news:39803165.D051FC90@schunter.etc.tu-bs.de...
|
| How about employing the RMF function for the ice too, so that the ice is
melting
| in the middle first and later on the coast.

Nice idea, if I could do it.  I'll never know unless I try I suppose, but in
this particular rendering the water is all a single plane.  Guess I might
negate the same mountain isosurface somehow to get the individual lakes
where they already stand.  Could be a challenge for me.
The RMF isn't also usable as a pigment, is it?

Bob

Post a reply to this message

"Bill DeWitt" <the### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:39802705@news.povray.org...
| Bob, see my question about Slope dependent texturing in p.g.

Have done so.

Post a reply to this message

Bob Hughes wrote:
> 
> Nice idea, if I could do it.  I'll never know unless I try I suppose, but in
> this particular rendering the water is all a single plane.  Guess I might
> negate the same mountain isosurface somehow to get the individual lakes
> where they already stand.  Could be a challenge for me.
> The RMF isn't also usable as a pigment, is it?
> 
> Bob

Sure it is, you can use every function as a pigment, there are some of the
megapov-sample scenes using that, like math_pigm.pov in the isosurface dir.

Christoph

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

Post a reply to this message

"Greg M. Johnson" <gre### [at] my-dejanewscom> wrote in message
news:39802CA6.469A2F0F@my-dejanews.com...
| Wonderful. How many objects are we seeing--I'd be even more impressed if
it
| were only one!
|
| Also, doesn't this just blow away the concept of heightfields--wouldn't it
| be impossible to make a non-hideous flythrough if these were mere
| heightfields and one lacked a Cray?

You're right on the mark with that comment Greg.  The circumventing of a
need for smooth height fields to do this sort of thing may make the HF
obsolete, dare I say.  The one drawback is the need to get a fine enough
'accuracy' apparently, among other things I might not know about, which can
slow things up.  The 'eval' and 'method 2' are superb additions.
Oh, yeah.  Yes, just the isosurface with ridged multifractal function and a
water plane, some ground fog, sky_sphere too.  A little detailed info:  24
by 24 unit square isosurface used with the camera traveling about 3 units at
a height of 0.41*y average above the water level.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

In article <39807635@news.povray.org>, "Bob Hughes" 
<per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote:

> Nice idea, if I could do it.  I'll never know unless I try I suppose, 
> but in this particular rendering the water is all a single plane.  
> Guess I might negate the same mountain isosurface somehow to get the 
> individual lakes where they already stand.  Could be a challenge for 
> me.

Just use the RMF function as a function pattern to control the 
melting...you won't even have to change your plane, just the texture of 
the water.


> The RMF isn't also usable as a pigment, is it?

Any isosurface function is useable as a pattern, and any pigment can be 
used in an isosurface 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" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:chrishuff-E2F56D.10205127072000@news.povray.org...
|
| Looks like a recently terraformed low-gravity planet...I don't think
| mountains like that would survive long in an atmosphere.

I've seen similarly thin ridges of mountains or hills like this before in
photos or television, but maybe not quite as thin as these turned out.  I
went with a bit of a spikey look to it all.

| Great job...have you tried making bare rock on near-vertical surfaces?
| It looks like a lot of the snow is clinging to very steep slopes.

The first animations I made were like that, this render was afterward when I
changed to a more heavily snowed winter time shifting to melting,
evaporating rather, summer time appearance.  Being all texture and no
substance it is of course physically incorrect anyhow.  I might do a change
of the isosurface to go along with.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

Oh, okay, I had it in mind the RMF type was set apart from the rest.  Thanks
for telling me, too lazy to look up in the MegaPov html file myself.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

"Chris Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:chrishuff-F3C93D.13042127072000@news.povray.org...
|
| > The RMF isn't also usable as a pigment, is it?
|
| Any isosurface function is useable as a pattern, and any pigment can be
| used in an isosurface function.

Thanks to you too for the quick reply.  I somehow had put the RMF into it's
own category outside the rest in my mind.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

Bob Hughes wrote:
> 
[...]
> 
> You're right on the mark with that comment Greg.  The circumventing of a
> need for smooth height fields to do this sort of thing may make the HF
> obsolete, dare I say.  The one drawback is the need to get a fine enough
> 'accuracy' apparently, among other things I might not know about, which can
> slow things up.  The 'eval' and 'method 2' are superb additions.
> Oh, yeah.  Yes, just the isosurface with ridged multifractal function and a
> water plane, some ground fog, sky_sphere too.  A little detailed info:  24
> by 24 unit square isosurface used with the camera traveling about 3 units at
> a height of 0.41*y average above the water level.
> 
> Bob

Even though your scene shows the strength of isosurface terrain very good i have
to disagree about heightfields becoming obsolete.  

IMO, their strength is where you apply many functions to the surface that would
take very long to render as an isosurface and most erosion functions would be
nearly impossible with isosurfaces, because they often use iterative algorithms.

Christoph

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

Post a reply to this message

The point is that every time I started to mess with HF's, I wallowed in indecision
about the resolution. If I made it too coarse, I could never do an animation later
of a flyby close up or balls bouncing off of it or a man hiking up it. If I made it
finer, it still wasn't going to be fine enough for whatever use I haven't thought up
yet.

Isosurfaces have the same appeal over HF's that vector art has over 2d  bitmap
painting, and really, 3D over vector and bitmap painting.  When I do my rolling
algorithm, I set up my isosurface in an INC. When I need to accurately compute
normals for the traces which determine particle trajectories, I set my
accuracy=0.00001, when I trace, it's 0.01 or 0.001.

Vector programs didn't render bitmap painting obsolete, per se..............

Christoph Hormann wrote:

> Bob Hughes wrote:
> >
> [...]
> >
> > You're right on the mark with that comment Greg.  The circumventing of a
> > need for smooth height fields to do this sort of thing may make the HF
> > obsolete, dare I say.  The one drawback is the need to get a fine enough
> > 'accuracy' apparently, among other things I might not know about, which can
> > slow things up.  The 'eval' and 'method 2' are superb additions.
> > Oh, yeah.  Yes, just the isosurface with ridged multifractal function and a
> > water plane, some ground fog, sky_sphere too.  A little detailed info:  24
> > by 24 unit square isosurface used with the camera traveling about 3 units at
> > a height of 0.41*y average above the water level.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Even though your scene shows the strength of isosurface terrain very good i have
> to disagree about heightfields becoming obsolete.
>
> IMO, their strength is where you apply many functions to the surface that would
> take very long to render as an isosurface and most erosion functions would be
> nearly impossible with isosurfaces, because they often use iterative algorithms.
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
> Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
> 
> The point is that every time I started to mess with HF's, I wallowed in indecision
> about the resolution. If I made it too coarse, I could never do an animation later
> of a flyby close up or balls bouncing off of it or a man hiking up it. If I made it
> finer, it still wasn't going to be fine enough for whatever use I haven't thought up
> yet.
> 

I usually do the HF in several resolutions and use low for the test renders and
high for the final versions.  It's also possibe to combine two Heightfields, one
for the large scale and one for details in the foreground.  

> Isosurfaces have the same appeal over HF's that vector art has over 2d  bitmap
> painting, and really, 3D over vector and bitmap painting.  When I do my rolling
> algorithm, I set up my isosurface in an INC. When I need to accurately compute
> normals for the traces which determine particle trajectories, I set my
> accuracy=0.00001, when I trace, it's 0.01 or 0.001.
> 
> Vector programs didn't render bitmap painting obsolete, per se..............
> 

Agreed, but I like bitmap painting :-)

Christoph, who also likes vectorizing photographs...

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

Post a reply to this message

Very very nice!

One comment - isn't the long vision a bit unrealistic? I'm not sure, but I
think it would be far more realistic if a lot of fog were added.

Greetings,

Rune
--
Updated July 23: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
3D images, include files, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, The POV-Ray Logo Contest,
music, 350+ raytracing jokes, and much more!

Post a reply to this message

Very nice render Bob! Is this a glacial area?
I'd say it's too even; the flat areas and the peaks have a pretty constant
elevetion. Otherwise realistic...

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

Post a reply to this message

> Since the animation was so garbled I figure a nice still image should be
> uploaded.
>
> Bob
>

Kind of what I picture the dragontail mountains to look like...

I think they're caleld Dragontail mountains, from the game Daggerfall. Mmmm,
Arena 3 is comming out next year.


ross.

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:3980a65a@news.povray.org...
| Very very nice!
|
| One comment - isn't the long vision a bit unrealistic? I'm not sure, but I
| think it would be far more realistic if a lot of fog were added.

And I had thought there was plenty of ground fog in there  :-(
I was kind of thinking of high base elevation for the lakes to begin with,
that's why the air is very clear.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

"David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote in message
news:3980BB3D.9AAAF0B9@faricy.net...
| Very nice render Bob! Is this a glacial area?
| I'd say it's too even; the flat areas and the peaks have a pretty constant
| elevetion. Otherwise realistic...

Thanks, guess I should have used Zpaint  :-)
Don't think this could be glacial until a second isosurface were added, and
I'm not thinking of doing that.

Bob

Post a reply to this message