 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very interesting effect, it looks convincing, especially the top part (probably
the angle more then the distance).
I wonder how it would look from up close.
Remco
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>
> Here's the larger image I promised, with a couple of tweaks to the function.
>
> As far as I know, mud like this is usually the result of fine, dusty
> material which either washes over a sandy or rocky layer, or is
> deposited on it by wind and then hydrated. The sun dries the mud
> unevenly, making the top shrink and causing the cracking and
> characteristic upward-curling effect.
>
> The point is that if I wanted to get really realistic, I'd have the mud
> appear on top of a layer of sand and use radiosity as part of the
> lighting solution; shadows from the mud curls and poor sky exposure
> would (should) ensure that the cracks were dark enough to provide a
> natural contrast.
>
> I tried that, but it's slow, damn slow. "Waiting for 2006" slow.
>
> So, instead, I just used a little ambient for color and added a dark
> brown plane for contrast. Unfortunately, the plane ended up clipping
> some of the mudcurls, which is why they have those dark spots in the
> center that look like little round holes. It also looks weird in the few
> spots where there's no mud, but all in all, I'm pleased with the
> outcome. It almost looks like a photo, if you happen to catch a passing
> glimpse of it in the corner of your eye.
>
> Oh, and to whoever asked before, it turns out that some of the curls
> *do* exhibit overhang.
>
> The sphere is a foot in diameter. It was provided for scale, and to add
> a little variety.
>
> Right, I'll shut up now. :)
>
> -Xplo
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Image]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> It looks really good, but I wonder about the small round spots.
An oversight on my part. Removing the plane, or altering the function
slightly, would eliminate them.
> > The sphere is a foot in diameter. It was provided for scale, and to add
> > a little variety.
>
> That seems a bit to large to me, such regular cracked mud is quite fine
> IMO (2-4 cm structures) larger pieces would involve more roughness and
> less curling.
I've seen cracked mud this size quite a number of times. I remember
slinging the pieces at things as a young teenager... ^_-
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remco de Korte wrote:
>
> I wonder how it would look from up close.
Too smooth, I expect. At the moment, there's no provision for extra
roughness in the mud.
It's not really intended to be seen up close. ^^;
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in povray.binaries.images, Karl Pelzer says...
> No problems here. Seems to be progressive JPG.
>
> Karl
>
Indeed, with a proper jpg viewer it is all right.
Nice mud by the way!
--
Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>
> Remco de Korte wrote:
> >
> > I wonder how it would look from up close.
>
> Too smooth, I expect. At the moment, there's no provision for extra
> roughness in the mud.
>
> It's not really intended to be seen up close. ^^;
>
> -Xplo
Okay, I'll try not to fall over...
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Acceptable. One only needs to improve the texturing. The function is quite
good. Thumbs up!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" wrote:
>
> Acceptable. One only needs to improve the texturing. The function is quite
> good. Thumbs up!
Okay, that's it pal. After I post that source code, I want to see your
version. ;P
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Your dried mud is the first I can recall seeing which looked right. However those
central dots have got to go
:-) Makes me think rain is starting to fall again, but with exactitude.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oops... uh-oh... yikes... eep... I'll try... :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>
> "Tony[B]" wrote:
> >
> > Acceptable. One only needs to improve the texturing. The function is quite
> > good. Thumbs up!
>
> Okay, that's it pal. After I post that source code, I want to see your
> version. ;P
I look forward to the opportunity.
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
