Geoff Wedig <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
news:3adc4434@news.povray.org...
>
> Gack!  Anyone have a good method for doing rain that doesn't involve
> millions of drops? :/

Try a plane/box very close to the camera with a mostly transparent
bozo texture. Should be fairly convincing, especially if you also
use a fog/media for murkiness

Gail
*************************************************************************
* gsh### [at] monotixcoza                *   Step into the abyss,           *
* http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~gail/   *   and let go.        Babylon 5   *
*************************************************************************
* The difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes a little longer *
*************************************************************************

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw <gsh### [at] monotixcoza> wrote:


> Geoff Wedig <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
> news:3adc4434@news.povray.org...
>>
>> Gack!  Anyone have a good method for doing rain that doesn't involve
>> millions of drops? :/

> Try a plane/box very close to the camera with a mostly transparent
> bozo texture. Should be fairly convincing, especially if you also
> use a fog/media for murkiness

Hmm, yeah, I could try that.  If I scale it a bit, and rotate it to get an
angle.  Yeah, could work.

Hmmm.

Maybe I should have the storm coming in, then I don't have to have actual
rain in the picture. :/

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

I like this one better :) - but i am not in this round of the irtc and not
voting so i dont really count!


--
Rick

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

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

Post a reply to this message

Rick [Kitty5] <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote:

> I like this one better :) - but i am not in this round of the irtc and not
> voting so i dont really count!

I'm not sure that I don't like this version better, and my opinion is
ultimately the one that counts the most.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Geoff Wedig wrote:
> 
> Ok, was playing around with the lighting and water effects on my IRTC image
> and came up with this.  Totally different mood, and I'm not sure which version
> I'll submit.  I've got a bunch of things I want to add, if this one (hey, you
> can see more, so more there must be!)
> 
> So what do people think?
> 

That looks really good although the sky is disgusting :-)

The photons look interesting although the structures seem quite large. 
Nice to see someone else working on water photons too.  Is it possible to
see some statistics?

The stones should probably be wet and darker near the water line.  Another
nitpicking: the 'glow' seems very bright in relation to the sunlight.
Maybe it would be better to have a different object in the daylight
version (how about a  model ship with remote control?)

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

Geoff Wedig wrote:
> 
> It's a Ridged MF.  I'm still getting the hang of using rmf.  Any good
> tutorials out there that show what the numbers actually do?  The
> descriptions in the MPov docs don't really tell me much, and they're slow to
> render, so I'm loathe to experiment much.
> 

I am planning to do something similar to my crackle tables with RMF for
illustration, but i did not yet have the time to work it out.  There are
more parameters for RMF so things will be more difficult.  Also it would
not be useful to only have only texture samples, because you can't easily
conclude how the corresponding isosurface looks like.  

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

In article <3adc4434@news.povray.org>, Geoff Wedig 
<wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote:

> Gack!  Anyone have a good method for doing rain that doesn't involve
> millions of drops? :/

Media, and some partially transparent boxes closer up. I've thought 
about the possibility of using isosurfaces, but never tried it...
Maybe create some meshes, each with a couple hundred or thousand 
raindrops, and distribute many copies of them through the scene.

-- 
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

Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:



> Geoff Wedig wrote:
>> 
>> Ok, was playing around with the lighting and water effects on my IRTC image
>> and came up with this.  Totally different mood, and I'm not sure which version
>> I'll submit.  I've got a bunch of things I want to add, if this one (hey, you
>> can see more, so more there must be!)
>> 
>> So what do people think?
>> 

> That looks really good although the sky is disgusting :-)

Well, yeah.  But it wasn't a serious attempt.  It came out nice enough for a
quickly thrown together thing.

> The photons look interesting although the structures seem quite large. 
> Nice to see someone else working on water photons too.  Is it possible to
> see some statistics?

Only used 20,000 photons, which isn't near enough for the size of the water
plane.  There's a lot of speckling.  What type of statistics did you want?

> The stones should probably be wet and darker near the water line.  Another
> nitpicking: the 'glow' seems very bright in relation to the sunlight.
> Maybe it would be better to have a different object in the daylight
> version (how about a  model ship with remote control?)

Yep.  Haven't started the retexturing work yet.  There is a 'water line',
but it's up higher, because it was for the mist rather than the water. 
Looks a little strange in this instance.

When talking about the glow, did you mean the light from it, or the glows
themselves?  The glows themselves aren't too bad, IMO, though they cast
perhaps too much light (you can still see their vague shadows), although,
depending on what he's throwing, that may be accurate.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Geoff Wedig wrote:
> 
> Only used 20,000 photons, which isn't near enough for the size of the water
> plane.  There's a lot of speckling.  

You don't need the whole water plane, i elaborated this a bit in my
'outdoor water photons' experiments.  

If only 20000 photons are distributed over the whole water the light
structures are probably fairly random and not related to the water
structure.  

> What type of statistics did you want?
> 

mostly render and photon times.  

> 
> When talking about the glow, did you mean the light from it, or the glows
> themselves?  

I meant the glows themselves.  Imagine for example a fire in sunlight. 
Even  if it is very bright, it's brightness is hardly visible.  

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

Well maybe the sea is a bit more violent at theplace you life... in bahrain
I love the still water sea shore..........




"Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
news:3adc329a@news.povray.org...
> Saadat Saeed <saa### [at] batelcocombh> wrote:
>
> > Try to make the water a bit more still!
>
> More still?  I thought the water was a bit *too* still.  It looks a little
> flat.  Needs to have some rolling waves, I thought.
>
> Geoff

Post a reply to this message