On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 03:50:37 -0500, Bob Hughes wrote:
>I thought this turned out fairly well when I added a height field and water plane. 
My faith in
>height fields is renewed because the isosurface I tried was a time distorter.
>The buildings are far from complete.
>Enjoy the scenery!

Thankyou Bob for bringing some sanity back to this place.

This is really looking good now, but a few things:

a) the landscape and it's transitions look very gradual/flat, not what I'd
   usually associate with the location of a lighthouse. 

b) The red rooves could do with some tiles or boards to break them up a bit,
   I think this one change would add so much to the image.

c) Those red rooves again, the perspective seems a bit wrong, maybe caused
   by the old enemy of ambient light, the roof of the out-building furthest
   away from the camera looks asthough it's right on top of the closest
   red roof, but when looking at the walls of these buildings and the ground
   you can see that they are some distance apart. 

d) The horizon looks too flat and too sharp if that makes any sense, maybe 
   could be fixed by bumping up the ground fog a bit or something like that.

Thanks for the inspiration Bob, for the last 3 hours I've been trying to decide
weather to work on my CGI scrip or work on my almost complete POV scene, so POV 
it will be. 

-- 
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

 11:10am  up 6 days, 15:28,  2 users,  load average: 1.95, 1.31, 1.10

Post a reply to this message

"Steve" <ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet> wrote in message
news:slr### [at] zero-ppslocaldomain...
|
| Thankyou Bob for bringing some sanity back to this place.

Glad to oblige (?)

| This is really looking good now, but a few things:
|
| a) the landscape and it's transitions look very gradual/flat, not what I'd
|    usually associate with the location of a lighthouse.

No doubt the lack of vegetation objects instead of this textured HF alone.  It's 40
POV units above
sea level, using 1 unit = 1 ft.  If you look at the picture I'm basing this view on
you'll see it
also seems flat, or so I think it does anyway, trees or not.  BTW, I need to get that
island in
there too.

| b) The red rooves could do with some tiles or boards to break them up a bit,
|    I think this one change would add so much to the image.

All they have now is a brick normal just so they weren't without anything.  It didn't
help.

| c) Those red rooves again, the perspective seems a bit wrong, maybe caused
|    by the old enemy of ambient light, the roof of the out-building furthest
|    away from the camera looks asthough it's right on top of the closest
|    red roof, but when looking at the walls of these buildings and the ground
|    you can see that they are some distance apart.

Figuring out the placements is total guesswork for me, I don't know why they weren't
aligned to
begin with when built.  Puzzled me.  But I think a lot of the perception is caused by
camera
position and zoom angle.

| d) The horizon looks too flat and too sharp if that makes any sense, maybe
|    could be fixed by bumping up the ground fog a bit or something like that.

The ground fog I used is very thin, I wondered about that myself.  Like, should it be
hazy or
should it be very clear?  Tough choice but clearness never seems right somehow.

| Thanks for the inspiration Bob, for the last 3 hours I've been trying to decide
| weather to work on my CGI scrip or work on my almost complete POV scene, so POV
| it will be.

Heck yeah, work (play?) with POV-Ray a while.  CGI probably has a less rewarding
outcome, I don't
know.  Thanks for those comments.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

"Bob Hughes" <per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote in message
news:39aa59fe@news.povray.org...
|  If you look at the picture I'm basing this view on you'll see it
| also seems flat, or so I think it does anyway, trees or not.  BTW, I need to get
that island in
| there too.

And now the web address I forgot to add:
http://www.floridalighthouses.org/pensacola.htm

Post a reply to this message

Bob, This one looks great. FYI: I went out there this weekend. The
orientation of the buildings are correct. None of the buildings are on
stilts, there is a raise in the shoreline (bluff? actually a slope) that
accounts for the 40ft off the waterline stat.

Jeff.

Bob Hughes <per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote in message
news:39aa3c60$1@news.povray.org...
> "Marc-Hendrik Bremer" <Mar### [at] t-onlinede> wrote in message
> news:39aa31b8$1@news.povray.org...
> |
> | Are those buildings hovering?
>
> Very observant of you, quit looking so closely!  :-)
> I've got to figure out if the larger building is on stilts or not, many
shoreline places are but
> it's 40 feet above sea level there.  The adjoining building on the
lighthouse is not.  I'm certain
> the other is supposed to be above ground some but not the lighthouse one.
A little adjustment to
> be done yet.
>
> Bob
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Your image is really close to the real thing.  Only thing missing are the trees.

-Mike

Post a reply to this message

"DreamChaser" <jko### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote in message
news:39aa7c92@news.povray.org...
| Bob, This one looks great. FYI: I went out there this weekend. The
| orientation of the buildings are correct. None of the buildings are on
| stilts, there is a raise in the shoreline (bluff? actually a slope) that
| accounts for the 40ft off the waterline stat.

Thanks, I had wondered if you had any observations direct from the source.
I went by what I saw in photos of three sides, only side not seen is
opposite the connected building.  Okay, so no stilts, but it sure looked
like at least a crawl space beneath the larger building.  In any case I must
get some windows and doors put on there.
I found that the light is said to have a revolving lens and yet also is said
to only flash every twenty seconds.  So my rotating light beam is probably
wrong.  In fact it appears that the landward side glass is blacked out but I
couldn't tell from the photos.
About time I start on another lighthouse soon, since I've got the basics for
all now,  and leave this one a little unfinished or risk breaking taboo  :-)

Bob

Post a reply to this message

"MikeH" <Ama### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:39A### [at] aolcom...
| Your image is really close to the real thing.  Only thing missing are the
trees.

It's a fast render so maybe I could wait out the longer rendering of a few
dozen trees having a several hundred triangle mesh leaves.  I feel I must
try anyway.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

Bob Hughes wrote:

> I thought this turned out fairly well when I added a height field and water plane. 
My faith in
> height fields is renewed because the isosurface I tried was a time distorter.
> The buildings are far from complete.
> Enjoy the scenery!

Will do!
Looks like the building is floating! Extend the lower portion throught the ground. I
think that
ground texture is pretty good for a texture (no Gill Grass or anything...).

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

Post a reply to this message

Hey Bob I just found some really good photos here:
http://users.erols.com/lthouse/ptr.htm


-- 
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

 10:58pm  up 8 days,  3:16,  2 users,  load average: 2.80, 2.47, 2.26

Post a reply to this message

"Steve" <ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet> wrote in message
news:slr### [at] zero-ppslocaldomain...
|
| Hey Bob I just found some really good photos here:
| http://users.erols.com/lthouse/ptr.htm

Too late, that was one of the places I went through to discover what I was
wrong about before.  A+ for effort though.

Bob

Post a reply to this message