 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The stars fade out closer to the Earth...it's surrounded by an area of
> complete darkness. Maybe you should check your media settings...or
> max_trace_level, but since there isn't a very sharp boundary, I doubt
> that is the problem.
I actually did that on purpose, I used a bmp for the stars, after blacking
out a circle in the center. I rendered it at 1024x768, then shrunk it with
photoshop. The stars are more visible in the larger pic.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3a424912$1@news.povray.org>, "Ben Lauritzen"
<loo### [at] yahoo com> wrote:
> I actually did that on purpose, I used a bmp for the stars, after
> blacking out a circle in the center.
Oh...um, why?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> Oh...um, why?
>
Because... it's hard to see the stars when there's something brighter in the
way. I guess...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Definitely an improvement, I think! Looks very good.. :o)
Well, I see no stars (?) if they are supposed to be there.. Anyway my
idea for a further improvement, would be to make the shadows from the
clouds a little less dark.. And by the way, do you use 2 layers for the
clouds? Then, the bottom layer looks a bit strange.
But I like the whole of it, nevertheless.
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ben Lauritzen wrote:
>
> Personally, I think it's purdy.
>
> [Image]
Indeed it is.
But (there has to be one!) I think your water is unrealistically clear.
Can we actually see the continental shelf off the coast of Venezuela
from space?
--
Francois Labreque | Rimmer: "Let's go to red alert!"
flabreque | Kryten: "Are you sure, Sir? You realize it
@ | actually means changing the bulb!"
videotron.ca
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Improved, but they look awfully thick still.
Earth pics are always purdy. :)
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looks very good. Any code?
Ben Lauritzen wrote:
>
> Personally, I think it's purdy.
>
> [Image]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:39:43 -0600, "Ben Lauritzen" <loo### [at] yahoocom>
wrote:
>Personally, I think it's purdy.
Impressive!
Any chance of getting a glimpse at the sourcecode?
--
Marc van den Dikkenberg
--
The PowerBasic Archives -- http://www.xs4all.nl/~excel/pb.html
All Basic Code Archives -- http://come.to/abcpackets
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> But (there has to be one!) I think your water is unrealistically clear.
> Can we actually see the continental shelf off the coast of Venezuela
> from space?
Well, no... artistical merit and all. I had the water as a solid color
before, but I couldn't seem to get it to look like water, so I just used the
land map again, which has clear water for some reason.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Improved, but they look awfully thick still.
>
> Earth pics are always purdy. :)
Not always...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
