In article <3AB3AB0A.E0FFFF71@heday.freeservers.com>, "H.E. Day" 
<The### [at] hedayfreeserverscom> wrote:

> Well.  I moved the Fortress in closer and got rid of the docks and
> connecting bridges.  A good idea, I think.  I also added some rocks off
> to the left to make the water have something to "cascade" around.  Looks
> good, I think.  Besides the ugly box where the water cascades, I don't
> think I have to do anything more in that area.  I also translated the
> clouds 100*z.
> Comments?

I liked it better with the docks...even if it wasn't even connected 
physically, it helped fill in the waterfall and take the place of those 
odd looking diagonal lines on the far left. I really don't think the 
idea was without hope...maybe the base portion, a retracted bridge, and 
power cable or energy beam.
Also, the texture seems to be more reflective, you can see the sky on 
the domes...this makes sense on the lower portion, where it looks like 
it's damp from spray, but it looks out of place on the top parts, which 
should be dry.

-- 
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

>Well.  I moved the Fortress in closer and got rid of the docks and
>connecting bridges.  A good idea, I think.  I also added some rocks off
>to the left to make the water have something to "cascade" around.  Looks
>good, I think.  Besides the ugly box where the water cascades, I don't
>think I have to do anything more in that area.  I also translated the
>clouds 100*z.
>Comments?
>
>H.E. Day
><><

I really liked the docks, but it looks awesome either way.  I think some of 
people here tend to be overly critical (there's a difference between 
constructive criticism and close-minded nit-picking), and the simple fact 
of the matter is that your work is usually better than theirs.  So, I'd 
take their "criticisms" with a grain of salt if I were you.

Jordan

<><

Post a reply to this message

Jordan Ellis <hookflash@hotmail_anti-spam_.com> wrote:

>>Well.  I moved the Fortress in closer and got rid of the docks and
>>connecting bridges.  A good idea, I think.  I also added some rocks off
>>to the left to make the water have something to "cascade" around.  Looks
>>good, I think.  Besides the ugly box where the water cascades, I don't
>>think I have to do anything more in that area.  I also translated the
>>clouds 100*z.
>>Comments?
>>
>>H.E. Day
>><><

> I really liked the docks, but it looks awesome either way.  I think some of 
> people here tend to be overly critical (there's a difference between 
> constructive criticism and close-minded nit-picking), and the simple fact 
> of the matter is that your work is usually better than theirs.  So, I'd 
> take their "criticisms" with a grain of salt if I were you.

I don't think anyone has been saying anything but constructive criticisms. 
There certainly hasn't been any rancor involved.  Most people *love* to see
what people can achieve with this free little program, after all.

As for this pic, I like the rocks but the pray looks a little too smooth
compared to the highly variable falls nearby.  The station position is nice,
since it affords a much better view, though I really liked the floating
aspect and now it looks like it's standing on a tall tower.  Not sure what
to do about this, as moving it to center frame will make the picture too
symmetrical.  You said to ignore the boxes, so I will, though in the far
right, it looks like the water texture goes funny, going from the hazy fuzz
into a smoother texture.  This might be caused by the boxes, but just in
case, I'm calling it to your attention.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

I like this. The stuff seems to fit together better than previously. I like
that you can see a lot more detail in the fortress now too. The flow lines
before the waterfall don't really stick out as artificial anymore. Maybe it
should have something on the left part, but if I were you, I would think fix
the rectangles behind the waterfall and it's done.

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

Geoff Wedig wrote:

> As for this pic, I like the rocks but the pray looks a little too smooth
> compared to the highly variable falls nearby.  The station position is nice,
> since it affords a much better view, though I really liked the floating
> aspect and now it looks like it's standing on a tall tower.  Not sure what
> to do about this, as moving it to center frame will make the picture too
> symmetrical.

I didn't really notice that. It needs some kind of visible termination, or the
start of one (like tapering or fragmenting (like at the top)). Whatever the haze
at bottom-right is, pull it back some.


> You said to ignore the boxes, so I will, though in the far
> right, it looks like the water texture goes funny, going from the hazy fuzz
> into a smoother texture.  This might be caused by the boxes, but just in
> case, I'm calling it to your attention.

I thought that was some sort of atmospheric effect...
What's with the ring on the left side of the waterfall?

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

much better :)

i might be tempted to leave it as it is now, maybe add a couple of boats -
or similar craft on the water in the distance to give the impression of
activity


--
Rick

POV-Ray News & Resources - http://povray.co.uk
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://kitty5.com
Hi-Impact web site design & database driven e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA

Post a reply to this message

"H.E. Day" wrote:
> 
> Well.  I moved the Fortress in closer and got rid of the docks and
> connecting bridges.  A good idea, I think.  I also added some rocks off
> to the left to make the water have something to "cascade" around.  Looks
> good, I think.  Besides the ugly box where the water cascades, I don't
> think I have to do anything more in that area.  I also translated the
> clouds 100*z.
> Comments?
> 

The right part looks quite optimal now, i'm really looking forward to
seeing a large non-jpg version of that fortress.  The forground part looks
ok in the new version too, just a bit more structure in the bright steam
would be good IMO.

For the left side, the 'cave' looks good, but the rectangular structures
need
to be eliminated of course.

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

Chris Huff wrote:

> I liked it better with the docks...even if it wasn't even connected
> physically, it helped fill in the waterfall...

I too liked it better with the docks. They gave the scene balance and
scale. The falls alone just don't cut it.

-- 
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

Geoff Wedig wrote:

> Most people *love* to see what people can achieve with this free little
> program, after all.

Free little program !?! It may be free but it is feature rich and growing
all the time :)

-- 
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

Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:



> Geoff Wedig wrote:

>> Most people *love* to see what people can achieve with this free little
>> program, after all.

> Free little program !?! It may be free but it is feature rich and growing
> all the time :)

Of course, but it's still free, and it isn't bloatware like so many
packages.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message