"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3A6704F2.2047238D@gmx.de...
>
> Making the vegetation 3-dimensional by adding it to the geometry of the
> landscape would be a nice thing if you are not afraid of slow rendering.

Uh, you're talking about a huge parse aren't you? :-)  I'm still only at 256MB
memory here.
I figure each tree would be only several pixels even closest to the camera.

> I posted a 2d gradient pattern some time ago that could be used for this
> purpose similar to the slope pattern you used for the texture.

Not exactly sure how you meant "2D" here but I seem to recall that.

> Thanks for the code BTW.

Glad you liked, and yw.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

"Francois Labreque" <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote in message
news:3A670A7B.AF88AB34@videotron.ca...
>
> It's probably just the camera angle or me, but the mountain in the lower
> left-hand side seems a bit too low to have glaciers.

Yeah, just snow let's pretend, not glaciers.  Think you're right though the
terrain flattens out under the camera, or appears so anyway.

> > Oh, and the scene file is at p.t.s-f.
>
> Thank you very much.

YW, and I forgot to mention that I had done a strange thing to the slope
texture.  I rotated it some.  Not sure if that was a good idea to try.  Was
thinking about shadow-side having more snow and sunlit-side having less snow.
Needs another approach for that but I haven't figured a way (yet?) using just
the slope texture alone.  Probably only messed it up but I forgot to remove
that part.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

"Bob H." wrote:
> 
> Uh, you're talking about a huge parse aren't you? :-)  I'm still only at 256MB
> memory here.
> I figure each tree would be only several pixels even closest to the camera.
> 

No, i meant to do the plants with the isosurface, just make the planted
parts a bit higher and more noisy.

> 
> Not exactly sure how you meant "2D" here but I seem to recall that.
> 

It only means that it's 2d :-) meaning that it calculates the gradient in
a plane. Souldn't matter here, because usually you use something like:

isosurface {
  function { y - fnRMF(x, 0, z) - fnAdditiomalNoise(x, y, z) }
  ...
}

so you only use the RMF function on a 2d plane

Your construction is somewhat different, so i'm not sure if it works.

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

"Bob H." wrote:
> 
> "Tor Olav Kristensen" <tor### [at] onlineno> wrote in message
> news:3A662AA9.72C9714C@online.no...
> >
> > May I see the source ?
> > So that I can have a look at how to do such a nice scene :)
> >
> > And can you please also render it with AA ?
> 
> Oh, okay  ;-)  guess everyone would rather see it that way too.
> I'll post the pertinent part of the scene file to povray.text.scene-files
> shortly.  The AA render will be a while.

The new rendering looks better. 

Your sea is quite realistic. 
I like that it has areas that been "stirred up" (?) 
by the wind and the way the mountains reflects in it.

Thank you very much for sharing the code.


-- 
Best regards,

Tor Olav

mailto:tor### [at] hotmailcom
http://www.crosswinds.net/~tok/tokrays.html

Post a reply to this message

"Tor Olav Kristensen" <tor### [at] onlineno> wrote in message
news:3A67E95E.AA1436A0@online.no...
>
> Your sea is quite realistic.
> I like that it has areas that been "stirred up" (?)
> by the wind and the way the mountains reflects in it.
>
> Thank you very much for sharing the code.

Glad to.  Of course, "needs work" is all I can ever think about it.

Post a reply to this message

I see now, yes, that's the kind of thing I've thought too but when I tried it
the render time was phenomenal by my standards.  First time I've seen your
Ategeros program concept at your web site.  I do remember the talk about that.
By comparison what I'm doing here is child's play but I'll see what I can do to
improve  :-)

Bob H.

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3A6### [at] gmxde...
>
> No, i meant to do the plants with the isosurface, just make the planted
> parts a bit higher and more noisy.
>
> >
> > Not exactly sure how you meant "2D" here but I seem to recall that.
> >
>
> It only means that it's 2d :-) meaning that it calculates the gradient in
> a plane. Souldn't matter here, because usually you use something like:
>
> isosurface {
>   function { y - fnRMF(x, 0, z) - fnAdditiomalNoise(x, y, z) }
>   ...
> }
>
> so you only use the RMF function on a 2d plane
>
> Your construction is somewhat different, so i'm not sure if it works.
>
> Christoph

Post a reply to this message

"Bob H." wrote:
> 
> I see now, yes, that's the kind of thing I've thought too but when I tried it
> the render time was phenomenal by my standards.  

I already feared that, maybe some internal gradient pattern would be
faster.  

> First time I've seen your
> Ategeros program concept at your web site.  I do remember the talk about that.
> By comparison what I'm doing here is child's play but I'll see what I can do to
> improve  :-)
> 

I don't think that can be compared since Ategeros is only about
heightfields so it's quite limited.  Of course adding some seperate
objects for trees could be quite good even for an isosurface landscape.  

I did not work much on Ategeros recently, also because isosurfaces offer
many things not possible with heightfields. 

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

"Bob H." wrote:

> Got to admit this makes the unantialiased one look bad.  It's just that sometimes AA
does a lot to make things
> fuzzy and blurred, esp. when using lower screen resolutions, and I liked the better
than 20-20 vision sort of
> thing.

I agree. In a way it's kind of a lose-lose situation, but not much you can do about
it. The best would of course be
a super-high-res render w/out aa, but that would take forever and it could really only
be viewed as a printout
anyway.

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

"Bob H." wrote:
> 
> Got to admit this makes the unantialiased one look bad.  It's just that sometimes AA
does a lot to make things
> fuzzy and blurred, esp. when using lower screen resolutions, and I liked the better
than 20-20 vision sort of
> thing.
> I've recently put my screen at 1600x1200 again (probably temporarily) so the non-AA
version still looks fair.
> Changed the sunlight direction for better terrain relief and shadows since that last
one.  3.5 hours to render.
> Oh, and the scene file is at p.t.s-f.
> 
> Bob H.

I hate to pick your nits here, Bob, but would there really be that much
green vegetation with that much snow around ?

Otherwise a nice image :)

-- 
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

"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:3A69117D.BCB85FFE@pacbell.net...
>
> I hate to pick your nits here, Bob, but would there really be that much
> green vegetation with that much snow around ?

Pick away, then I'll just say it's elevation differences being the reason.
Much is grasses and evergreens anyway.

> Otherwise a nice image :)

Thanks Ken.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message