![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
That would make a perfect jewelry box. Can't tell without a pic, but this
may look better in a close up than other fur textures.
-Shay
Simon Adameit <gom### [at] gmx de> wrote in message
news:3c62a06f@news.povray.org...
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
oliWood <O.E### [at] durham ac uk> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
3C62A729.8AEE1321@durham.ac.uk...
> Looks like velvet to me. Did it take ages to render ?
No, it renders quite fast and gives acceptable results even with the default
media settings but there is still a difference between a few seconds and a
few minutes.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> Looks good!
Thanks!
> What's the rendertime?
>
A few minutes.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> That would make a perfect jewelry box.
Perhaps I'll make one :-)
>Can't tell without a pic, but this
> may look better in a close up than other fur textures.
>
Have to try it.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Since the render time is only a few minutes, I believe that this method is
worth the time in some cases. Your fur has a distinct look from other fur
methods.
The only problem I can see is on the csg items. If you used union, then
merge would probably correct the problem. If you are using merge already,
then the method has a definite flaw.
-Shay
Simon Adameit <gom### [at] gmx de> wrote in message
news:3c62a06f@news.povray.org...
> I used an IOR of -1 together with scattering media type 5 to create this
fur
> effect but I can't jugde if it is worth the rendering time compared to a
fur
> texture, so what do you think?
>
>
>
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> Since the render time is only a few minutes, I believe that this method is
> worth the time in some cases. Your fur has a distinct look from other fur
> methods.
> The only problem I can see is on the csg items. If you used union, then
> merge would probably correct the problem. If you are using merge already,
> then the method has a definite flaw.
>
Sorry, but I can't see the problem. Could you please point me to it.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Simon Adameit <gom### [at] gmx de> wrote in message
news:3c62ca51$1@news.povray.org...
> Sorry, but I can't see the problem. Could you please point me to it.
>
>
>
On your rounded box and rounded cyl I can see the outine of the individual
CSG objects. Might just be an illusion or compression. I'm not sure. I
wonder if a superellipsoid would show the same effect.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>
> On your rounded box and rounded cyl I can see the outine of the individual
> CSG objects. Might just be an illusion or compression. I'm not sure. I
> wonder if a superellipsoid would show the same effect.
>
I've used merge so I think a superellipsoid would give the same effect.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Simon Adameit wrote:
>
> I used an IOR of -1 together with scattering media type 5 to create this fur
> effect but I can't jugde if it is worth the rendering time compared to a fur
> texture, so what do you think?
It really is more velvet than fur; you can tell straightaway.
Incidentally, that edging effect on the rounded objects I think occurs
in real life too. Should check that...
Excellent stuff!
--
signature{
"Grey Knight" contact{ email "gre### [at] yahoo com" }
site_of_week{ url "http://digilander.iol.it/jrgpov" }
}
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>
> It really is more velvet than fur; you can tell straightaway.
Hey, I didn't even know what fur means. I just saw that all the others were
calling this fur and thought that it would be the right word but now where
I've looked it up I agree with you that it really looks more like velvet and
not fur.
> Incidentally, that edging effect on the rounded objects I think occurs
> in real life too. Should check that...
> Excellent stuff!
>
Thanks!
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |