I knocked this together at lunch time. It's not supposed to look like this, but
some interesting errors occured in the media formula! I particularly like the
line of ufos that appeared in the first image, I didn't put them there!!

I found that I could remove these "errors" by reducing the size of the object
the media is in and increasing the samples, but I thought I'd post the error
'cause it looks much nicer than the proper version!

For those who are curious, the media density looks like this:
    density {
     function {
      1/(0.001 + sqrt(x*x + z*z)*y)
     }
     scale 1000
     translate -10*y

     poly_wave 3

     colour_map {
      [0 rgb 0]
      [1000 rgb 10]
     }
    }

Though the formula was a bit different for the first image.

Do you like it?

--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'spikemedia1.jpg' (28 KB) Download 'spikemedia2.jpg' (37 KB)

Preview of image 'spikemedia1.jpg'

Preview of image 'spikemedia2.jpg'

The inner surface of an space ring structure, like Larry Niven's 
Ringworld or Bungie's HALO?
Can't really tell for sure...if there is any solid ring, it is hidden by 
the media, but that looks like the curve of a ring rising up above.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

Nope, it's just a spike. y=1/x, kinda thing (okay slightly more complicated than
that but that's the basic shape).

I was thinking of the Final Fantasy games when I did it, they have a tendency to
have those kinds of gigantic glowing spikes sticking up into the sky whenever
there's some serious magic going on. They even have one at the end of the film
:)

--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com


Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:chr### [at] netplexaussieorg...
> The inner surface of an space ring structure, like Larry Niven's
> Ringworld or Bungie's HALO?
> Can't really tell for sure...if there is any solid ring, it is hidden by
> the media, but that looks like the curve of a ring rising up above.
>
> --
> Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
> POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
> TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

"Tek" wrote: 
>Do you like it?

I think it's great! The second image looks like a contrail left
by some space-warping stardrive :) 

- Pete.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 22:21:31 -0000, Tek wrote:
> I knocked this together at lunch time. It's not supposed to look like this, but
> some interesting errors occured in the media formula! I particularly like the
> line of ufos that appeared in the first image, I didn't put them there!!

They turned out really good, wish I could have errors like that:-)

--
%HAV-A-NICEDAY                    email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
Steve                                web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
                                             or http://start.at/zero-pps
  1:32am  up 5 days,  7:21,  1 user,  load average: 1.02, 1.04, 1.06

Post a reply to this message

Ok i'm a lil lost... I clipped the density but i just get a lot of static when i
apply it to an object... How did you do this... ???

Tek wrote:

> I knocked this together at lunch time. It's not supposed to look like this, but
> some interesting errors occured in the media formula! I particularly like the
> line of ufos that appeared in the first image, I didn't put them there!!
>
> I found that I could remove these "errors" by reducing the size of the object
> the media is in and increasing the samples, but I thought I'd post the error
> 'cause it looks much nicer than the proper version!
>
> For those who are curious, the media density looks like this:
>     density {
>      function {
>       1/(0.001 + sqrt(x*x + z*z)*y)
>      }
>      scale 1000
>      translate -10*y
>
>      poly_wave 3
>
>      colour_map {
>       [0 rgb 0]
>       [1000 rgb 10]
>      }
>     }
>
> Though the formula was a bit different for the first image.
>
> Do you like it?
>
> --
> Tek
> http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
>
>  [Image]
>
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

It's beautiful! Both images!

I'm a little confused by the color_map, though. I though all color_map
indexes had to be between 0 and 1

Josh English
eng### [at] spiritonecom
http://www.spiritone.com/~english

Post a reply to this message

Well it depends what type of media you're using. If you're using POV 3.5 it
defaults to method 3, but in megapov it uses method 1 by default IIRC. I'm using
3.5, so you should probably just put "method 3" somewhere in the media
statement.

For reference, I'll put the source in p.b.s-f :)

--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com


Ryan Mooney <rdm### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:3C746F79.2001088A@earthlink.net...
> Ok i'm a lil lost... I clipped the density but i just get a lot of static when
i
> apply it to an object... How did you do this... ???
>
> Tek wrote:
>
> > I knocked this together at lunch time. It's not supposed to look like this,
but
> > some interesting errors occured in the media formula! I particularly like
the
> > line of ufos that appeared in the first image, I didn't put them there!!
> >
> > I found that I could remove these "errors" by reducing the size of the
object
> > the media is in and increasing the samples, but I thought I'd post the error
> > 'cause it looks much nicer than the proper version!
> >
> > For those who are curious, the media density looks like this:
> >     density {
> >      function {
> >       1/(0.001 + sqrt(x*x + z*z)*y)
> >      }
> >      scale 1000
> >      translate -10*y
> >
> >      poly_wave 3
> >
> >      colour_map {
> >       [0 rgb 0]
> >       [1000 rgb 10]
> >      }
> >     }
> >
> > Though the formula was a bit different for the first image.
> >
> > Do you like it?
> >
> > --
> > Tek
> > http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
> >
> >  [Image]
> >
> >  [Image]
>

Post a reply to this message

Josh English <eng### [at] spiritonecom> wrote in message
news:3C754A30.4ACB37AB@spiritone.com...
> It's beautiful! Both images!

Thank you :)

> I'm a little confused by the color_map, though. I though all color_map
> indexes had to be between 0 and 1

I confess I'm not entirely sure of the limitations. I think colour maps may span
any range, but obviously only values the pigment formula uses will be used. So
in this case my function is in the range 0 to 1000, so I use that for my colour
map. But maybe it just clamps the values at 1...

--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

Thanks... =]
I guess i will have to make my way to 3.5... i am reluctant though... Like dragging
a bat into the light.... =] I would like to see the color scheme as well... Not one
of my bat areas... Even when i draw on paper i find it hard to incorporate color...
=]

Tek wrote:

> Well it depends what type of media you're using. If you're using POV 3.5 it
> defaults to method 3, but in megapov it uses method 1 by default IIRC. I'm using
> 3.5, so you should probably just put "method 3" somewhere in the media
> statement.
>
> For reference, I'll put the source in p.b.s-f :)
>
> --
> Tek
> http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
>
> Ryan Mooney <rdm### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
> news:3C746F79.2001088A@earthlink.net...
> > Ok i'm a lil lost... I clipped the density but i just get a lot of static when
> i
> > apply it to an object... How did you do this... ???
> >
> > Tek wrote:
> >
> > > I knocked this together at lunch time. It's not supposed to look like this,
> but
> > > some interesting errors occured in the media formula! I particularly like
> the
> > > line of ufos that appeared in the first image, I didn't put them there!!
> > >
> > > I found that I could remove these "errors" by reducing the size of the
> object
> > > the media is in and increasing the samples, but I thought I'd post the error
> > > 'cause it looks much nicer than the proper version!
> > >
> > > For those who are curious, the media density looks like this:
> > >     density {
> > >      function {
> > >       1/(0.001 + sqrt(x*x + z*z)*y)
> > >      }
> > >      scale 1000
> > >      translate -10*y
> > >
> > >      poly_wave 3
> > >
> > >      colour_map {
> > >       [0 rgb 0]
> > >       [1000 rgb 10]
> > >      }
> > >     }
> > >
> > > Though the formula was a bit different for the first image.
> > >
> > > Do you like it?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tek
> > > http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
> > >
> > >  [Image]
> > >
> > >  [Image]
> >

Post a reply to this message