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.

Bob H.
--
omniVerse http://users.aol.com/persistenceofv/all.htm

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'rmf3flyover.jpg' (164 KB)

Preview of image 'rmf3flyover.jpg'

I agree, well done landscapes are always pleasing to look at. Antialiasing
would improve this image so much though. My old roommate had Bryce a couple
years back, that was fun to play with.

ross

Bob H.
<per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:%20&body=Relating%20to%20POV-Ray:>
wrote in message news:3a65b154@news.povray.org...
> 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.
>
> Bob H.
> --
> omniVerse http://users.aol.com/persistenceofv/all.htm
>
>
>
>

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.

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

"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