 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Heightfield is a bit dodgy even though it's 5000x5000 (don't look to closely
at the foreground!), but I don't think the sky is too bad for my first
attempt at a 'realistic' one.
Threw the robot in there to give it a bit of scale. (He's the only complex
model I've got!)
Looking at this makes we want to get me hands dirty with slope dependent
textures. The documentation I've read is a bit scary though, so do any of
you considerate people out there know of any not-too-hard tutorials that a
dim bulb such as myself could understand?
Many thanks,
Alan.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'r_sunset1.jpg' (64 KB)
Preview of image 'r_sunset1.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alan Holding wrote:
>
> Heightfield is a bit dodgy even though it's 5000x5000 (don't look to closely
> at the foreground!), but I don't think the sky is too bad for my first
> attempt at a 'realistic' one.
>
> Threw the robot in there to give it a bit of scale. (He's the only complex
> model I've got!)
Whoa!
Doesn't look like a sunset to me, but that landscape looks exactly like
the Grand Canyon.
(Okay, it hardly looks anything like that, but the lighting, jaggedness,
and atmospherics are fairly reminiscent of what I saw a couple of weeks back.)
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alan Holding wrote:
>
> Heightfield is a bit dodgy even though it's 5000x5000 (don't look to closely
> at the foreground!), but I don't think the sky is too bad for my first
> attempt at a 'realistic' one.
It's a beauty for sure.
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Loable esfuerzo... Very nice. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alan Holding wrote:
>
> Heightfield is a bit dodgy even though it's 5000x5000 (don't look to closely
> at the foreground!), but I don't think the sky is too bad for my first
> attempt at a 'realistic' one.
>
Looks good IMO, especially the lighting.
Concerning the terrain, you might try a seperate heightfield with higher
resolution for the foreground.
>
> Looking at this makes we want to get me hands dirty with slope dependent
> textures. The documentation I've read is a bit scary though, so do any of
> you considerate people out there know of any not-too-hard tutorials that a
> dim bulb such as myself could understand?
>
A simple slope dependent texture is not that difficult, for example just
'slope y' would be worth trying.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Great sky, great atmosphere!
The sun really comes out nice.
Perhaps a normal could help on the foreground.
Remco
Alan Holding wrote:
>
> Heightfield is a bit dodgy even though it's 5000x5000 (don't look to closely
> at the foreground!), but I don't think the sky is too bad for my first
> attempt at a 'realistic' one.
>
> Threw the robot in there to give it a bit of scale. (He's the only complex
> model I've got!)
>
> Looking at this makes we want to get me hands dirty with slope dependent
> textures. The documentation I've read is a bit scary though, so do any of
> you considerate people out there know of any not-too-hard tutorials that a
> dim bulb such as myself could understand?
>
> Many thanks,
> Alan.
>
> [Image]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've posted a copy of the commented source, sans robot, to
povray.binaries.scene-files, if anyone wants to have a look.
Thanks for the compliments! 8O>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alan Holding wrote:
> Heightfield is a bit dodgy even though it's 5000x5000 (don't look to closely
> at the foreground!)
> Looking at this makes we want to get me hands dirty with slope dependent
> textures.
If you're delving into MegaPOV, why not go ahead and make the landscape an
isosurface? Render time will be a lot longer, but it will look a lot better
because it has no resolution problem.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote:
>
> If you're delving into MegaPOV, why not go ahead and make the landscape an
> isosurface? Render time will be a lot longer, but it will look a lot better
> because it has no resolution problem.
>
That's not really true, because you have to specify an accuracy. The low
values needed for a good foreground would lead to extremely slow rendering
near the horizon. Splitting up the terrain into several parts is often a
good idea even with isosurfaces.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> That's not really true, because you have to specify an accuracy. The low
> values needed for a good foreground would lead to extremely slow rendering
> near the horizon. Splitting up the terrain into several parts is often a
> good idea even with isosurfaces.
Yeah, that sounds like the best way to do it.
The grass in my Lego phalanx way back was hf in the foreground and just a
bump-normal plane in the background...
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
