After a few lighting and texture changes.
This one without radiosity: 34 hours 40 mins to render

The textures on the tunnel walls still isnt right, Seems too bright.
I liked the progress and thought I'd share it.

Alan

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'Subway8x6-3.jpg' (69 KB)

Preview of image 'Subway8x6-3.jpg'

Alan Nickerson wrote:
> 
> After a few lighting and texture changes.
> This one without radiosity: 34 hours 40 mins to render
> 
> The textures on the tunnel walls still isnt right, Seems too bright.
> I liked the progress and thought I'd share it.
> 

Looks quite ok, good job on the modelling work.  

some points:

-The textures look quite grainy, not so good IMO.  
-there are very few real shadows due to the many light sources, which makes
things somewhat flat.  

The rendering time looks awfully long for such a scene.  Maybe try removing most
of the light sources and using radiosity with some high ambient objects for the
lights instead.  

Christoph

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

Post a reply to this message

When I first looked at this I thought the tracks were above
the platform, and that the space between the tracks was a
vertical wall (perhaps with an I-beam profile).

Once I followed the lines into the tunnels all became clear,
but I think something needs to be done with the lighting or
camera angle or something (sorry I only know how to say
what is wrong, not how to fix it :-)

I really like this work.  Thanks for posting.

"Christoph Hormann" <Chr### [at] schunteretctu-bsde> wrote in
message news:39AA60FB.3F3EEBEA@schunter.etc.tu-bs.de...
>
>
> Alan Nickerson wrote:
> >
> > After a few lighting and texture changes.
> > This one without radiosity: 34 hours 40 mins to render
> >
> > The textures on the tunnel walls still isnt right, Seems too bright.
> > I liked the progress and thought I'd share it.
> >
>
> Looks quite ok, good job on the modelling work.
>
> some points:
>
> -The textures look quite grainy, not so good IMO.
> -there are very few real shadows due to the many light sources, which
makes
> things somewhat flat.
>
> The rendering time looks awfully long for such a scene.  Maybe try
removing most
> of the light sources and using radiosity with some high ambient objects
for the
> lights instead.
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
> Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

This morning, I took a closer look at the real tunnels and the tunnel
lighting is wrong, the small tunnels only have lights on the 'outside'.
You say it looks flat and your right, but the lighting in the real world of
this isnt really very good either. Using area lights for each flourecent
light slows things down a lot, and I'm still trying to get the textures
right.

The scene still needs the cables, pipes and wires that run through the
tunnels.

Thanks for the input.

Alan



"Christoph Hormann" <Chr### [at] schunteretctu-bsde> wrote in
message news:39AA60FB.3F3EEBEA@schunter.etc.tu-bs.de...
>
>
> Alan Nickerson wrote:
> >
> > After a few lighting and texture changes.
> > This one without radiosity: 34 hours 40 mins to render
> >
> > The textures on the tunnel walls still isnt right, Seems too bright.
> > I liked the progress and thought I'd share it.
> >
>
> Looks quite ok, good job on the modelling work.
>
> some points:
>
> -The textures look quite grainy, not so good IMO.
> -there are very few real shadows due to the many light sources, which
makes
> things somewhat flat.
>
> The rendering time looks awfully long for such a scene.  Maybe try
removing most
> of the light sources and using radiosity with some high ambient objects
for the
> lights instead.
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
> Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

Alan Nickerson wrote:
> 
> This morning, I took a closer look at the real tunnels and the tunnel
> lighting is wrong, the small tunnels only have lights on the 'outside'.
> You say it looks flat and your right, but the lighting in the real world of
> this isnt really very good either. Using area lights for each flourecent
> light slows things down a lot, and I'm still trying to get the textures
> right.
> 
> The scene still needs the cables, pipes and wires that run through the
> tunnels.
> 
> Thanks for the input.
> 
> Alan
> 

I would really suggest to try radiosity and use high ambient finish for the
light objects.  Probably render time could be even shorter than now.  

Maybe have a look at warp's radiosity samples:
http://www.students.tut.fi/~warp/pics/Radiosity_test/
http://www.students.tut.fi/~warp/pics/Radiosity_test2/

Christoph

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

Post a reply to this message

I thought radiosity added time to the rendering. I have the radiosity
settings in the code, but they were not used this time. Last time I used
radiosity, after 48+ hours the scene was not even 60% complete.

The light objects use media and a ambient of 2.0

Thanks for the links, I'll definitly take a look.

Alan

"Christoph Hormann" <Chr### [at] schunteretctu-bsde> wrote in
message news:39ABB8F5.1B65EC1C@schunter.etc.tu-bs.de...
>
>
> Alan Nickerson wrote:
> >
> > This morning, I took a closer look at the real tunnels and the tunnel
> > lighting is wrong, the small tunnels only have lights on the 'outside'.
> > You say it looks flat and your right, but the lighting in the real world
of
> > this isnt really very good either. Using area lights for each flourecent
> > light slows things down a lot, and I'm still trying to get the textures
> > right.
> >
> > The scene still needs the cables, pipes and wires that run through the
> > tunnels.
> >
> > Thanks for the input.
> >
> > Alan
> >
>
> I would really suggest to try radiosity and use high ambient finish for
the
> light objects.  Probably render time could be even shorter than now.
>
> Maybe have a look at warp's radiosity samples:
> http://www.students.tut.fi/~warp/pics/Radiosity_test/
> http://www.students.tut.fi/~warp/pics/Radiosity_test2/
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
> Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

In article <39abd861$1@news.povray.org>, "Alan Nickerson" 
<ani### [at] mathsoftcom> wrote:

> I thought radiosity added time to the rendering.

For most scenes, it does. But if you have a large number of lights, 
using radiosity for lighting could be faster, especially when they are 
area lights. The idea is to remove all or most of the lights and use 
radiosity to simulate true area lighting.


> I have the radiosity settings in the code, but they were not used 
> this time. Last time I used radiosity, after 48+ hours the scene was 
> not even 60% complete.

Are you using MegaPOV? Are you trying to use settings from the official 
version in MegaPOV? Are you using MegaPOV in addition to the area 
lights, or as a replacement for them?
MegaPOV radiosity is usually a lot faster, but it takes different 
settings.

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message

Alan Nickerson wrote:
> 
> This morning, I took a closer look at the real tunnels and the tunnel
> lighting is wrong, the small tunnels only have lights on the 'outside'.
> You say it looks flat and your right, but the lighting in the real world of
> this isnt really very good either. Using area lights for each flourecent
> light slows things down a lot, and I'm still trying to get the textures
> right.

Don't forget to suppress light buffers when you add many lights. I ran
into strong memory issues while doing a similar scene:

http://perso.club-internet.fr/wozzeck/gl_merc_1.html

... but everything went right after I added Light_Buffers=off

> The scene still needs the cables, pipes and wires that run through the
> tunnels.

Good idea. Gilles Tran's macro, perhaps?

-- 

      __  __ __  __  _
|  | /  \  /  / |_  /  |/
\/\/ \__/ /_ /_ |__ \_ |\

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:00:13 -0400, Alan Nickerson wrote:
>
>The scene still needs the cables, pipes and wires that run through the
>tunnels.

And the cables and pipes all have dust on them that you can see very
clearly from the train and from the platform.  That's not going to 
be easy, faking it with layered textures is your only hope. 


-- 
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

  5:39pm  up 7 days, 21:57,  2 users,  load average: 1.04, 1.19, 1.12

Post a reply to this message

Some great ideas here, I'll need to explore them, and I am Using MegaPOV 0.5

Thanks
Alan

"Chris Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:chrishuff-280CBF.13141829082000@news.povray.org...
> In article <39abd861$1@news.povray.org>, "Alan Nickerson"
> <ani### [at] mathsoftcom> wrote:
>
> > I thought radiosity added time to the rendering.
>
> For most scenes, it does. But if you have a large number of lights,
> using radiosity for lighting could be faster, especially when they are
> area lights. The idea is to remove all or most of the lights and use
> radiosity to simulate true area lighting.
>
>
> > I have the radiosity settings in the code, but they were not used
> > this time. Last time I used radiosity, after 48+ hours the scene was
> > not even 60% complete.
>
> Are you using MegaPOV? Are you trying to use settings from the official
> version in MegaPOV? Are you using MegaPOV in addition to the area
> lights, or as a replacement for them?
> MegaPOV radiosity is usually a lot faster, but it takes different
> settings.
>
> --
> Christopher James Huff
> Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
> TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
>
> <><

Post a reply to this message