 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dawn McKnight wrote in message <3A2D0B4C.430F1EEB@mac.com>...
>A big umbrella, a wooden chaise lounge, a beach ball, a sand castle? A
>towel, a discarded bikini top, a sun-tan oil bottle? Odd,
>exterior-finished walls leaning inward, with a sign that says 'Welcome
>to the asylum'?
I like the last idea the best.
>There's something odd about the water line. It should be darker, but
>also smoother than it appears here... this looks 'noisy,' which is not
>my memory of wave-washed sand.
Thanks, that'll be me getting my scalings and turbulations in the wrong
order again.
>Nice work, overall, and definite progress from the last one!
Thanks, hopefully so will the next update :)
Kev
http://web.libertysurf.co.uk/kevin.ellis
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote in message <3A2D0E5D.D76AF46B@gmx.de>...
>
>
>It's already much better, but as Dawn mentioned, the wet sand should have
>a finer structure.
Thanks, that's now sorted.
>I also wonder about the large scale structures in the water. They don't
>seem to be reflections from the clouds and look somewhat irritating.
As I said, and have now done. I added an if() statement to the sand iso so
that the RMF pertubations are about 5 times less bumpy below the water level
than they are above it. i.e
function {
y
+0.07*if(-z,-z,1) // Sloping off in -z direction
-35*Func2(x/400,y/200,z/400) // Overall Shape
-1.9*Func2(x/30,y/30,z/30)*if(y+6,1,0.2) // Less bumpy below water line
}
actually the
+0.07*if(-z,-z,1)
should probably be
+0.07*if(-z,-z,min(z,1)) ,
I'll have to check this one now. That first one should create a problem at
z=0, but then again so should the other one at y=6. Oh well, they seem to
work ok :)
Kev
http://web.libertysurf.co.uk/kevin.ellis
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Seems I have little time to reply to things around here anymore but I had to
stop and say how the days of using a turbulent blue and white bozo pattern on
the inside of a sphere seem so long ago, although perhaps not gone completely.
Not only great clouds but overall good look to this. Except besides the
comments already made I thought it looks resized from a smaller rendering. No?
Bob H.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Seems to be looking much better, whats the render time on this sucker?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is so awesome, looks more like an inland pool than a sea
shore, but it is very well done, and the clouds have come
along quite a bit since your last posting, there's still a
touch of fuzzieness there, but I think it's acceptable, the
layered appearance works well.
I hope we're going to see the code for this baby.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeropps uklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
10:16pm up 56 days, 41 min, 2 users, load average: 1.02, 1.07, 1.03
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I thought it looks resized from a smaller rendering. No?
It is actually resized from a larger rendering (1280*720) but the only
'graphics' app on this computer is Microsoft Photo Editor' and it has a poor
resize facility, horrible smoothing occurs. It does look a lot sharper
normally, honest :)
Kev
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rick [Kitty5] wrote in message <3a2d6d8f@news.povray.org>...
>Seems to be looking much better, whats the render time on this sucker?
Thanks. Well the render time for that pic was about 18 hours on PIII 667.
Now that I've added some objects I've boosted the aa settyings to +am2 +a0.1
+r2. I left it rendering last night and it was about 65% after 18 hours, oh
dear, but I think the cloud samples may have been too high.
Kev
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steve wrote in message ...
>This is so awesome, looks more like an inland pool than a sea
>shore, but it is very well done, and the clouds have come
>along quite a bit since your last posting, there's still a
>touch of fuzzieness there, but I think it's acceptable, the
>layered appearance works well.
Thanking you. Well it is more a water meets sand pic really, I'm not sure
whats going on out of the field of sight, maybe i should spin the camera
around and have a look. I'm now trying bozo instead of wrinkles for the
clouds, it looks a bit less fuzzy and less blocky too.
>I hope we're going to see the code for this baby.
I shall post the full source when It's done. The old cloud code has been in
p.b.s-f for a couple of weeks if you want to tinker.
Kev
http://web.libertysurf.co.uk/kevin.ellis
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I did have a quick go at bounding the clouds with an iso, but it is really
> really slow. So I gave up. I may go back when I have a bit more time.
Idea: How about having a big box for most of the clouds, and randomly
placing a couple dozen little boxes (containing one cloud, or a group of
them) or blobs with the blob pattern + granite at different heights?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I thought it looks resized from a smaller rendering. No?
>It is actually resized from a larger rendering (1280*720) but the only
>'graphics' app on this computer is Microsoft Photo Editor' and it has a poor
>resize facility, horrible smoothing occurs. It does look a lot sharper
>normally, honest :)
>Kev
You can use povray itself for resizing images down,
with interpolation.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
