I think my whole damned apartment would fit inside your garage.

Post a reply to this message

Thomas Lake wrote:
> 
> Closing in on 4 months since I last posted anything. Anyone ever notice that
> they come back from a long "povray break" to find themselves better, or at
> least with fresh ideas and a renewed interest? Anyway I recently dug up a
> project I started a long time ago, modelling my garage, and have been
> working on it these past couple of days. Object wise this is by far the
> densest image I've done, also the reason I quit the project a while back.
> There are still a few things I'd like to add but its getting very close to
> being finished, besides there are other things I'd like to play with :-)
> There are 1700 some odd objects here, all modeled in Moray or Rhino, by
> objects I mean primitives. Took 5Hrs 44Mins to render on Pov 3.5 Beta 9. I
> played around with various radiosity settings, I could not decide between
> recursion 3 and recursion 1, I settled on 1 because 3 looked a little too
> washed out but it had more of a nice warm feeling.
> 

Looks good, are you sure all finishes have ambient 0? With recursion_limit
1 most shadows should be much darker IMO.

As others mentioned it looks a bit too clean and smooth, apart from some
more structure on walls and floor some reflection on the plastic and metal
objects would help too.

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

> Looks good

Thanks.

>are you sure all finishes have ambient 0?

Yes. I'm going to play around with higher recursion limits anyway.

> As others mentioned it looks a bit too clean and smooth, apart from some
> more structure on walls and floor some reflection on the plastic and metal
> objects would help too.

I'm still not quit finished with it, there are still some more things to
add. However I don't think I'm going to make any of the surfaces any more
reflective as none of the objects in my real garage are very reflective and
I don't think it would help the image any. I do agree that it looks a bit
too smooth though, but more reflections would only make that worse not
better.

Post a reply to this message

> That's some work you've done there with all those objects.

Thanks:-)

> Is the floor really that flat?

Hmm you know now that you mention it, it is too smooth. I'll have to play
around with a heightfield or something, thanks for pointing it out.

Post a reply to this message

>"Dust" is often something people site is
> missing in raytraced images but something that is extremely hard to
> simulate. I've sometimes found that using a small normal of any type on
> objects can make them seem a bit rougher, sort of like they are covered in
> dust, but not really.

Here is a cite that might help:
http://www.dvgarage.com

It seems like this guy made his career "dirtying things up".Two tutes in
particular might be useful: the crate and the parking lot.
Short of resorting to image maps like he does you might try the new slope
pattern mapped into the pigment_pattern.

There is some nice modelling here. I see I'm not the only one with a blown
monitor or two that I don't know what to do with :)

Post a reply to this message

> > Closing in on 4 months since I last posted anything. Anyone ever notice
> > that they come back from a long "povray break" to find themselves
better,
> > or at least with fresh ideas and a renewed interest?
>
>   This happens to me after some minutes without tracing!

Hehe

> > densest image I've done, also the reason I quit the project a while
back.
>
>   Worth the break!

Thanks!

> As you said, the problem with such scenes is populating
> them (like my office one).

Yeah but I'm almost done 'populating' mine, at least I hope I'm almost done.

> > played around with various radiosity settings, I could not decide
between
> > recursion 3 and recursion 1, I settled on 1 because 3 looked a little
too
> > washed out but it had more of a nice warm feeling.
>
>  Then use recursion 2!!! ;)

I did try it but there was very little difference between 2 and 1, there
seemed to be a much larger jump from 2 to 3. I'm now actually playing around
with the idea of using much higher recursion limits, like 4-6.

Post a reply to this message

> There is some nice modelling here. I see I'm not the only one with a blown
> monitor or two that I don't know what to do with :)

I had the same thought.  Got a collection of 'em in my basement.  :)

Post a reply to this message

> > Looks good
>
> Thanks.
>
> >are you sure all finishes have ambient 0?
>
> Yes. I'm going to play around with higher recursion limits anyway.

Oops I stand corrected you are right I had a number of textures with ambient
0.1 and ones that covered a significant area of the image too, thanks for
pointing that out:-)

<snip>

Post a reply to this message

that's allot o' work even with a modeler... =]
no prob... =-]

Thomas Lake wrote:

> "Ryan Mooney" <rdm### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
> news:3C3FC7E7.D90C4351@earthlink.net...
> > Wow... =]
>
> Thanks:-)

Post a reply to this message