 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It's very beautiful! :o)
May I ask something? Is your philosophy to reuse only the things you
have found to "work great"? I mean, a lot of POV'ers seem to experiement
with new things all the time.. But maybe you mostly stick with things
you already succesfully invented; continuing to use them? (This includes
textures, principles, modelling and lighting)
I'm just thinking about how you acheive these great results, moreover in
a short amount of time, with a relative slow computer.. And may I humbly
ask, if you could share the water texture with us? Please. It's the best
POV water I've seen so far.
Eminent! What more to say..
Byebye,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> May I ask something? Is your philosophy to reuse only the things you
> have found to "work great"? I mean, a lot of POV'ers seem to experiement
> with new things all the time.. But maybe you mostly stick with things
> you already succesfully invented; continuing to use them? (This includes
> textures, principles, modelling and lighting)
Hmm. I don't think so. My images may have a similar style, but I don't
think I don't experiment with every new image. The only thing that may
transfer between images is snippets of trace() code and maybe some lighting
setups (that are quickly altered).
I usually just start with a black text screen and just start typing. When I
get to a point where I think the result might look good, I hit the render
button. Case in point - I built the station from the ground up without
rendering it once (no texturing or landing pads...) . I guess I can just
visualize it. ;)
> I'm just thinking about how you acheive these great results, moreover in
> a short amount of time, with a relative slow computer..
Actually, I'm using a P133 instead of my P200. :) Patience is key.
> And may I humbly
> ask, if you could share the water texture with us? Please. It's the best
> POV water I've seen so far.
I will. When I post Take 6, the water code will be right there. :)
Ta.
H.E. Day
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I tend to agree with others in that the second platform seems to diminish
> the impact of the image - makes the first platform look less monumental
> and, well, enigmatic. Maybe you could use something else to balance the
> image (an island, a large moon, etc, etc) and/or shift the viewpoint so the
> platform is more centered.
Blimps. Everyone loves blimps, right?
> I'd say the clouds still need some work, they are too bright and look
> somewhat solid (remind me of porcelain for some reason). Perhaps a little
> fluff along the edges would help...
Hmm. I think i have the clouds fixed to my satisfaction. You'll see in the
next image. :)
H.E. Day
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Margus Ramst wrote:
> and, well, enigmatic. Maybe you could use something else to balance the
> image (an island, a large moon, etc, etc) and/or shift the viewpoint so the
> platform is more centered.
A two headed elephant.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> A two headed elephant.
Do we really need a picture of John McCain ruining an otherwise marvelous
work of art?
:>}
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Maybe a craft coming in for a landing...
Nekar
"Jim Kress" <dea### [at] kressworks com> wrote in message
news:3ab59563@news.povray.org...
> > A two headed elephant.
>
> Do we really need a picture of John McCain ruining an otherwise marvelous
> work of art?
>
> :>}
>
> Jim
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
How about zeppelins?
"H.E. Day" wrote:
>
> Blimps. Everyone loves blimps, right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
H.E. Day <The### [at] hedayfreeserverscom> wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding 7bit, 12 lines --]
> Well, got rid of the cave/rocks and just put spray there. To balance
> the image I placed another floating station farther away. Also I added
> more detail to the stations.
> And I fixed the falls. The problem was that the falling water texture
> was simply stretched in the z direction, which caused some weird stuff
> to happen around the edges. I slapped a cylindrical warp on the texture
> and viola!
> Comments? Enjoy!
Ok, the waterfall is much better here. It's much clearer that it's a
circular depression and not a waterfall, now, thanks to the clouds to the
right as well as left.
Like others, I don't like the second station, though someone mentioned
making a second pit, which could be cool. Other than that, everything looks
fabulous.
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Who has noticed (besides me) that the file name ends with 001.
As if it were going to be part of an _animation?_
"H.E. Day" wrote:
>
> Well, got rid of the cave/rocks and just put spray there. To balance
> the image I placed another floating station farther away. Also I added
> more detail to the stations.
> And I fixed the falls. The problem was that the falling water texture
> was simply stretched in the z direction, which caused some weird stuff
> to happen around the edges. I slapped a cylindrical warp on the texture
> and viola!
> Comments? Enjoy!
>
> H.E. Day
> <><
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Image]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It's still pretty awesome, but the water was better in the last one I think.
The falls look like almost solid vertical bands. I kinda liked it better with
one station. It looks too like this one's gone more towards photorealism from
the flatter modernist painting look you kinda had before. I like it either
way, but realistic is harder to pull off because everything has to be in
place. Right now the falls don't fit.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
