"Bob H." wrote:
> 
> Thought this turned out well considering there isn't any AA used so here it is
> for all to see.
> Rendered in 36 minutes on my 500MHz PIII.
> It's all slope-dependant texturing used on the iso, water is separate plane,
> along with simple sky_sphere.
> I always think of Vistapro, the terrain renderer, when I do these.
> A person could change these kinds of things forever and I'd still like anything
> that comes of it.

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 ?


-- 
Best regards,

Tor Olav

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

Post a reply to this message

Excellent! I know rmf and slope-dependent textures take patience, at least with my
ability to manipulate them.

If you do do a render with aa, i would worry that a lot of detail would get washed
out, but as is it dies look grainy. Guess you'll have to render at 5000x3000 :)

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

Post a reply to this message

"Bob H." wrote:
> 
> Thought this turned out well considering there isn't any AA used so here it is
> for all to see.
> Rendered in 36 minutes on my 500MHz PIII.
> It's all slope-dependant texturing used on the iso, water is separate plane,
> along with simple sky_sphere.
> I always think of Vistapro, the terrain renderer, when I do these.
> A person could change these kinds of things forever and I'd still like anything
> that comes of it.
> 

I first was quite astonished about the short rendering time, but the price
for that is no aa and no radiosity.  Anyway, it looks really nice.

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

"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.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

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.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'rmf3flyoveraa.jpg' (112 KB)

Preview of image 'rmf3flyoveraa.jpg'

Apologies to those who get the long text lines in certain newsreaders, I always
forget to go back to the usual 79 character lines after posting to p.t.s-f.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

I'm not sure whether this one is better than the non-aa one.
Probably truth lies in between.

A trick that used to work quite well for me is to render
without aa but with 50% more size (each, x and y), then blur
it in Photoshop/Gimp/... (2-3 pixels) and finally scale it
down to the desired format.
This usually results in a very fine blur effect, less
than aa in the renderer, thus leaving many of the details.

-Hans-

"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.
> 
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

Better now IMO.

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.  

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.  

Thanks for the code BTW.

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:
> 
> Changed the sunlight direction for better terrain relief and shadows since that last
one.  3.5 hours to render.

Geez...  It took so long to render that some of the snow has melted. ;)

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.

> Oh, and the scene file is at p.t.s-f.

Thank you very much.

-- 
Francois Labreque | In the future, performance will be measured
    flabreque     | by the size of your pipe.
        @         |             - Dogbert, on networking
   videotron.ca

Post a reply to this message

"Hans-Detlev Fink" <hdf### [at] pecosde> wrote in message
news:3A670386.27BA903A@pe.cos.de...
> I'm not sure whether this one is better than the non-aa one.
> Probably truth lies in between.

Hmmm, okay.  Thanks(?)

> A trick that used to work quite well for me is to render
> without aa but with 50% more size (each, x and y), then blur
> it in Photoshop/Gimp/... (2-3 pixels) and finally scale it
> down to the desired format.
> This usually results in a very fine blur effect, less
> than aa in the renderer, thus leaving many of the details.

Yeah, used to do that a lot myself back in the 486 CPU days.  If the render can
be done within a day and at a large res. while using AA I'm not so tempted
anymore.  Btw, this was +a0.2 +r2 +am2 +j1.0

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message