|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
The Water is based on Christoff Horman's water tutorial, and the stars
are from the standard stars.inc. The mountians are pure-POV. I'm having
a few issues with the scene so far:
Is the scale of the ship beleivable?
I can't get the trees on the mountains to show up better in the dim
light. I'm not sure if upping their ambient value will do what I want,
since they should only be lit from the left.
I hope the image isn't too dark. I rendered it on a Mac and it should be
dark, but not too dark to see any details.
Josh English
eng### [at] spiritone com
http://www.spiritone.com/~english
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'mountains.jpg' (67 KB)
Preview of image 'mountains.jpg'
![mountains.jpg](/povray.binaries.images/attachment/%3C3C713320.503F6D88%40spiritone.com%3E/mountains.jpg?preview=1)
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Josh English wrote:
>
> The Water is based on Christoff Horman's water tutorial, and the stars
> are from the standard stars.inc. The mountians are pure-POV. I'm having
> a few issues with the scene so far:
>
> Is the scale of the ship beleivable?
What ship? ;-)
I think the scale is right.
> I can't get the trees on the mountains to show up better in the dim
> light. I'm not sure if upping their ambient value will do what I want,
> since they should only be lit from the left.
Have you tried radiosity?
The trees look a bit like 'lego'.
> I hope the image isn't too dark. I rendered it on a Mac and it should be
> dark, but not too dark to see any details.
It's fairly bright here, maybe you should show a version without gamma
correction so everyone can adjust it for his individual monitor
characteristic.
The mountain on the left looks interesting, how was it done?
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 06 Feb. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"Josh English" <eng### [at] spiritone com> wrote in message
news:3C713320.503F6D88@spiritone.com...
<snip>
The trees don't look right - they seem very two dimensional, the base trunk
(i.e. the trunk w/o foliage) seems to long, and in general they seem too
regular. Also, IMHO, they are scaled about *2 larger than I would expect.
I noticed working on my current IRTC entry that it is hard to get away with
simple fir trees even at a great distance.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> Josh English wrote:
> >
> > The Water is based on Christoff Horman's water tutorial, and the stars
> > are from the standard stars.inc. The mountians are pure-POV. I'm having
> > a few issues with the scene so far:
> >
> > Is the scale of the ship beleivable?
>
> What ship? ;-)
>
> I think the scale is right.
>
> > I can't get the trees on the mountains to show up better in the dim
> > light. I'm not sure if upping their ambient value will do what I want,
> > since they should only be lit from the left.
>
> Have you tried radiosity?
Yep. It washed out all the colors towards a dull brown. Even the clouds
were tinted brown. I can't get the hang of the new radiosity features yet.
>
> The trees look a bit like 'lego'.
They are a simple macro: two cones and a little random turbulence on the
second cone. I'd like to make them a bit more detailed, but there's a
lot of them and I'm worried about memory consumption (Granted, I just
got a RAM boost so I shouldn't have as many problems now)
>
> > I hope the image isn't too dark. I rendered it on a Mac and it should be
> > dark, but not too dark to see any details.
>
> It's fairly bright here, maybe you should show a version without gamma
> correction so everyone can adjust it for his individual monitor
> characteristic.
I used assumed gamma 1.2 for that render. I forgot to set it back to
1.0. It didn't make any difference on my screen.
>
> The mountain on the left looks interesting, how was it done?
>
Both the mountain peak and the range were the result of an experiment. I
was trying to develop a more realistic background for the IRTC animation
entry I am working on and a happy accident led me to develop this scene,
which I've had in my head for some time. I'd like to say it was
completely done in POV-Ray, but the ship body is an intersection of
three height-fields.
Here is the mountain code:
#declare Peak =
height_field {
function 400,400 {
pigment {
boxed scale 0.45 translate <0.5,0.5,0> turbulence 0.2
octaves 7 lambda 2.1
poly_wave 2.5 } }
//water_level 0.001
translate <-0.5,0,-0.5>
pigment { slope { <-3,-10,0> 0 0.5 }
color_map { [0 Tan ] [0.5 Brown ] [0.51 White*2 ] [1.0
White*2] }}
rotate 30*y
scale <3,1.5,3>*40
translate <-50,-1.001,100>
}
#declare MountainRange =
height_field {
function 600,600 {
pigment {
cylindrical scale 0.40 translate <0.5,0.5,0> turbulence 0.3
octaves 7 lambda 2.1
poly_wave 2.0 } }
//water_level 0.001
translate <-0.5,0,-0.5>
pigment { slope { <1,-10,0> 0 0.5 }
color_map { [0 Tan ] [0.5 Brown ] [0.5 White*2 ] [1.0
White*2] }}
rotate 90*y
scale <-8,1.2,3>*40
translate <00,-1.001,110>
}
After plugging the function into a height field I went all out and also
used slope patterns for the first time.
Josh English
eng### [at] spiritone com
http://www.spiritone.com/~english
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Tom Melly wrote:
>
> "Josh English" <eng### [at] spiritone com> wrote in message
> news:3C713320.503F6D88@spiritone.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> The trees don't look right - they seem very two dimensional, the base trunk
> (i.e. the trunk w/o foliage) seems to long, and in general they seem too
> regular. Also, IMHO, they are scaled about *2 larger than I would expect.
>
> I noticed working on my current IRTC entry that it is hard to get away with
> simple fir trees even at a great distance.
I'm finding out that it isn't very satisfying. I could alter the heights
quite easily for each tree. I'll try scaling them down a bit.
Thanks
Josh English
eng### [at] spiritone com
http://www.spiritone.com/~english
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |