Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:



> Geoff Wedig wrote:
>> 
>> Well, I may not be HE Day, but that's all the more reason for me to ask for
>> other people's thoughts.  So here's my current IRTC WIP.  Sorry about the size
>> of the image for those with smallish monitors, but I needed to go that big
>> (1024x768) to get the detail I wanted. ;)
>> 
>> So thoughts?  Criticisms (constructive, of course)?

> I love the stone texture.  Is it just an image_map, or is it procedural?

The stones are around 13000 separate isosurfaces, placed procedurally.  The
texture is pretty simple.

> I think the picture should explain a bit better what the person is
> doing.  Is he throwing a spell at a beast in the mist, or simply dumping
> his dinner left-overs?

There will be some text associated with the pic, yes.

> IMHO, it needs more pipes and stuff.

Yeah, that's a fairly recent addition, so I'm still working out where and
what.

> The bluish mist should extend further in the distance.  Right now, it
> looks like an Hollywood set with a wall behind the castle (unless you're
> going for a '30's B-movie feel).

Hmm, I was going for an 'edge of the world' effect, but maybe it doesn't
work.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Nekar Xenos <vir### [at] iconcoza> wrote:

> Beautiful!

Thanks

> Can't really make out what the structures are that go up and down the walls.
> But I guess I wouldn't know even if I could see in fine detail because
> everything is completely otherworldly. Reminds me a bit of 'The Wheel of
> Time' by Robert Jordan...  :-)

Which structures?  The piping?

I'm sorry about the WoT reference, since I've never read them, nor do I wish
to (bad associations), but it was supposed to be a bit of the fantastic.


> I like the smoke in the background, even though it doesn't really look real.

It's mostly the Galaxy.inc, tweaked slightly to deal with radiosity and a
few other things.  Finding one that I liked was a bit of a challenge,
though.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

> Which structures?  The piping?

Yes; it does seem to end in the middle of nowhere...

>
> I'm sorry about the WoT reference, since I've never read them, nor do I
wish
> to (bad associations), but it was supposed to be a bit of the fantastic.

Bad? I haven't read the book but I started playing the game and I like it.
Taste differs, I guess....   :-)

Post a reply to this message

Nekar Xenos <vir### [at] iconcoza> wrote:


>> Which structures?  The piping?

> Yes; it does seem to end in the middle of nowhere...

Which ones?  The ones to the left curve into the building, while the ones on
the right are drainage (I'm planning on putting spray underneath, if I can
ever figure out a good texture :/

>>
>> I'm sorry about the WoT reference, since I've never read them, nor do I
> wish
>> to (bad associations), but it was supposed to be a bit of the fantastic.

> Bad? I haven't read the book but I started playing the game and I like it.
> Taste differs, I guess....   :-)

No, bad associations.  I read about the first hundred pages once and put it
down.  It's not my thing.  But many many people love them.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

In article <3AB### [at] darwincwruedu>, wed### [at] darwincwruedu 
says...

> So thoughts?  Criticisms (constructive, of course)?
I like it, but I think it would be a lot better if the walls looked not 
so new and clean. 
Perhaps it would help if you added a "granite"-normal to the stones. Or 
even add the "granite" pattern to the isosurface.

Lutz-Peter

Post a reply to this message

Lutz-Peter Hooge <lpv### [at] gmxde> wrote:

> In article <3AB### [at] darwincwruedu>, wed### [at] darwincwruedu 
> says...

>> So thoughts?  Criticisms (constructive, of course)?
> I like it, but I think it would be a lot better if the walls looked not 
> so new and clean. 
> Perhaps it would help if you added a "granite"-normal to the stones. Or 
> even add the "granite" pattern to the isosurface.

Yeah, the walls are a little too clean.  I'm planning on weathing them some,
but as the render already takes close to 12 hours, I'm worried what it'll do
to the time it takes.  I'm using radiosity, so I can't even split the effort
over several systems.

Does anyone have any data on how much longer adding a (say) granite pigment
to the iso takes?  The isos are deformed rounded boxes right now.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

>> Criticisms (constructive, of course)?

You're doing fine! My thoughts:

1) The white bottom is too bright. Really.

2) I didn't realize it was smoke in the background, until someone said
so. I think it looks too rough. It should be smooth. You could add
something behind the smoke, for the rough and realistic look, but if you
want to keep the "edge of the world effect" (interesting idea, and I
think you should) then I suggest you keep things simple, behind the
smoke. Eventually just a wall, for example.

3) The stones are great, but they look like a bump map. Since you say
it's really Iso-Stones, I strongly suggest you add a small random
displacement in the depth direction. Yeah, they were good builders in
ancient times, but anyway.

4) Someone said "they're too clean" and it's true, but I disagree that a
granite pattern would help. It would just give more noise in the
picture. Better to use a texture that looks like either sludge or algae
has been running down the walls for a long time.. But discrete, and if
possible, not just some long "lines", but have each stone affect it.

Hope this helps! I like the rest. The spell is surely made of glows, and
they look magic. The human gives the whole picture it's proportions,
although I think that is too simple / not fully enough.

Hugo

Post a reply to this message

Hugo <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote:

>>> Criticisms (constructive, of course)?

> You're doing fine! My thoughts:

> 1) The white bottom is too bright. Really.

Truely.  That's actual scattering media, so it's not without reason, but
reducing it will darken the rest of the image, which I'm not sure is a goof
thing.

> 2) I didn't realize it was smoke in the background, until someone said
> so. I think it looks too rough. It should be smooth. You could add
> something behind the smoke, for the rough and realistic look, but if you
> want to keep the "edge of the world effect" (interesting idea, and I
> think you should) then I suggest you keep things simple, behind the
> smoke. Eventually just a wall, for example.

Since the swirly patterns are done with the Galaxy.inc file, I don't think
there can really be much behind them.  Have to think about it though.

> 4) Someone said "they're too clean" and it's true, but I disagree that a
> granite pattern would help. It would just give more noise in the
> picture. Better to use a texture that looks like either sludge or algae
> has been running down the walls for a long time.. But discrete, and if
> possible, not just some long "lines", but have each stone affect it.

You've read my mind actually.  I had written down some notes this morning
about adding a mossy layer on the lower stones, fading away as it gets
higher.  I'm not sure how it'll look, but I'm going to give it a go.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

This is a really GREAT render.  I really like the masonry and the design
of the castle, etc.

How is the wall lit?  It might be really useful to *try* a radiosity
render.  If it's supposed to be lit by the mist, IMHO I think the shadow
of the railing and a lot of other stuff is way too distinct.

Like others, I also think the individual stones need to be bumpier. 
Maybe you could use a bump_map or something.  The texture should be a
mix of some smooth pattern like bozo and some creased pattern like
wrinkles or crackle. (check out some natural stone masonry in your
area).  Plus, if you are using crackle with metric 1.0(?) to make the
bricks, you might want to increase it to 1.2 or something.

Also like others, I think the glowing mist is too bright.  If it's
media, maybe you could put a dark, indistinct, huge figure somewhere
near the top.  It would make a dark area in the mist and give the
spellcaster a target.

Again, I agree about the sky.  If everything is supposed to be this
bright, how can you even see the stars (or whatever those specks
are...)  Have you tried to see the stars at night when you have any
significant light nearby?  Try looking out a window of your house at
night.  Everything you see is way dark because your eyes are adjusted to
the light.

Keep up the great work.

-Ben

Post a reply to this message

Ben Birdsey <cla### [at] mailcom> wrote:


> This is a really GREAT render.  I really like the masonry and the design
> of the castle, etc.

Thanks.

> How is the wall lit?  It might be really useful to *try* a radiosity
> render.  If it's supposed to be lit by the mist, IMHO I think the shadow
> of the railing and a lot of other stuff is way too distinct.

This is a radiosity render.  There are only two light sources in the
picture, one under the mist (which is scattering media) and one at the ball
of light.  Most of the shadows are from the latter.  The tall hazy shadows
are from the former.  I'm assuming that scattering media + radiosity handles
these lights correctly, but I may be wrong on that.

> Like others, I also think the individual stones need to be bumpier. 
> Maybe you could use a bump_map or something.  The texture should be a
> mix of some smooth pattern like bozo and some creased pattern like
> wrinkles or crackle. (check out some natural stone masonry in your
> area).  Plus, if you are using crackle with metric 1.0(?) to make the
> bricks, you might want to increase it to 1.2 or something.

I'm planning on adding some bumps to the iso, but haven't done so because
that's fairly easy, but will slow the render, so I'm waiting until more of
the details are in place.

> Also like others, I think the glowing mist is too bright.  If it's
> media, maybe you could put a dark, indistinct, huge figure somewhere
> near the top.  It would make a dark area in the mist and give the
> spellcaster a target.

Hmm, that's an idea.  Have to think about it.  I think it might take
attention away from some of the other things I've been doing.

> Again, I agree about the sky.  If everything is supposed to be this
> bright, how can you even see the stars (or whatever those specks
> are...)  Have you tried to see the stars at night when you have any
> significant light nearby?  Try looking out a window of your house at
> night.  Everything you see is way dark because your eyes are adjusted to
> the light.

In some ways, the sky is still too bright.  It casts a lot of light into the
deep shapws.  At the same time, it casts light onto the shingles on the top
of the tower, something I spent too $#%^ing long on to have it swallowed by
darkness. ;)  Have to consider what to do.

> Keep up the great work.

Intend on it.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message