 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This was a quickie. Just wanted to see how easy it really was. I resized the
image in gimp (was 1102*475)
--
-Jide
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'cloudysky.jpg' (46 KB)
Preview of image 'cloudysky.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fake Fake .... Thats a photograph ....!!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jan Walzer wrote:
>
> Fake Fake .... Thats a photograph ....!!!
Thank you, thank you. This was my first AWESOME ROLEX accusation :)
I must point out though that if you look at the shadows you'll see I screwed
up. Before I left for school this morning I just randomly placed the only
lightsource in the scene and it ended up a bit too close (about 2.5*radius
of the planet)
--
-Jide
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gimme code, gimme code, gimme code...
--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Echo of Tim's reply.
Ergo, post code, please! :)
Grim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That's the best computer generated sky I've ever seen. You've left me mouth
open!
Congratulations on such a superb work!
Fernando.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Nikias wrote:
> Gimme code, gimme code, gimme code...
>
> --
> Tim Nikias
> Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
>
>
My first source request :)
Ok it's now posted in p.t.s-f
--
-Jide
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I thought it was a fake too! :-0 My computer is now rendering it... But
isn't it true that 3dsmax can do such clouds much quicker? (I've only heard
small talk about it)
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jide wrote:
> This was a quickie. Just wanted to see how easy it really was. I resized the
> image in gimp (was 1102*475)
>
> --
> -Jide
Wow!!!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jide wrote:
>
> This was a quickie. Just wanted to see how easy it really was. I resized the
> image in gimp (was 1102*475)
>
Looks good!
How fast?
I think the sun should be visible somewhere, if it was below the horizon
the illumination of the clouds would have to be different.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 21 Feb. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:11:45 +0200, Jide wrote:
> This was a quickie. Just wanted to see how easy it really was. I resized the
> image in gimp (was 1102*475)
>
That is exelent, we need source for those clouds. Was it a fast or slow
render?
--
#local i=.1;#local I=(i/i)/i;#local l=(i+i)/i;#local ll=(I/i)/l;box{<-ll,
-((I/I)+l),-ll><ll,-l,ll>pigment{checker scale l}finish{ambient((I/l)/I)+
(l/I)}}sphere{<i-i,l-l,(I/l)>l/l pigment{rgb((I/l)/I)}finish{reflection((
I/l)/I)-(l/I)specular(I/l)/I}}light_source{<I-l,I+I,(I-l)/l>l/l} // Steve
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jide wrote in message <3c8d1cd4@news.povray.org>...
>This was a quickie. Just wanted to see how easy it really was. I resized
the
>image in gimp (was 1102*475)
>
oooh That's really nice.
Source? Please?
Gail
*************************************************************************
* gai### [at] mweb coza * Chaos, disorder and panic *
* http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~gail/ * My job here is done. *
*************************************************************************
* This is how the world ends. Swallowed in fire, but not in darkness *
*************************************************************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just perfect. I love the gradient too.
--
Jonathan.
"Jide" <jid### [at] kotisoonfi> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3c8d1cd4@news.povray.org...
> This was a quickie. Just wanted to see how easy it really was. I resized the
> image in gimp (was 1102*475)
>
> --
> -Jide
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jide <jid### [at] kotisoonfi> wrote in message
news:3c8d1cd4@news.povray.org...
Best PoV-Sky I can remember having seen.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hugo wrote:
> I thought it was a fake too! :-0 My computer is now rendering it... But
> isn't it true that 3dsmax can do such clouds much quicker? (I've only
heard
> small talk about it)
>
> Regards,
> Hugo
Thanks on the fake part, I guess :)
I don't know about 3dsmax but I'd think commercial programs would do it
faster (some clever fakes, well not like these are the real deal...).
--
-Jide
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Jide wrote:
> >
> > This was a quickie. Just wanted to see how easy it really was. I resized
the
> > image in gimp (was 1102*475)
> >
>
> Looks good!
>
> How fast?
>
> I think the sun should be visible somewhere, if it was below the horizon
> the illumination of the clouds would have to be different.
>
> Christoph
>
I agree on the sun and I was experimenting with it today but I think the
large scale of the scene made it impossible to use looks_like on the
light_source (looks like object not being visible when the light_source is
placed far enough). I'll propably try making the scene smaller when I find
the time.
And about the speed... NOT fast :P
I made a refined version this morning, just a bit under 10 hours on a 1.4GHz
athlon. I'll prolly
post a smaller version + make the larger version available otherwise.
--
-Jide
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
JRG wrote:
> Just perfect. I love the gradient too.
> --
> Jonathan.
Actually there is no gradient. I use the same approach as Chris Huff in
scenes/advanced/mediasky.pov from the official distro.
--
-Jide
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
>
> Best PoV-Sky I can remember having seen.
>
> -Shay
Thank you very much
--
-Jide
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Uhm ...ah...wot...
I'll check it out. Great effect!
--
Jonathan
"Jide" <jid### [at] kotisoonfi> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3c8e6ae8@news.povray.org...
> JRG wrote:
> > Just perfect. I love the gradient too.
> > --
> > Jonathan.
>
> Actually there is no gradient. I use the same approach as Chris Huff in
> scenes/advanced/mediasky.pov from the official distro.
>
> --
> -Jide
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> oooh That's really nice.
> Source? Please?
Just to make sure everyone gets it:
Jide posted his source on p.t.s-f
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
*perfect!*
/em closes mouth ...
== John ==
"Jide" <jid### [at] kotisoonfi> wrote in message
news:3c8d1cd4@news.povray.org...
> This was a quickie. Just wanted to see how easy it really was. I resized
the
> image in gimp (was 1102*475)
>
> --
> -Jide
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wow. Really big Wow.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jide" <jid### [at] kotisoonfi> escribió en el mensaje
news:3c8d1cd4@news.povray.org...
> This was a quickie. Just wanted to see how easy it really was. I resized
the
> image in gimp (was 1102*475)
Well, finally someone made it. A true sky with povray.
Congratulations, looks perfect.
Bye
--
Txemi Jendrix
tji### [at] euskalnetnet
http://www.geocities.com/txemijendrix
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Great job, but shouldn't the clouds have thickness (I don't see any).
This scene easily shows the problem of sky_sphere, as this sky is a sphere.
POV's problem is that sky_sphere centers on the origin, but needs to center
far below the camera.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c8fdafd$1@news.povray.org>, "RAY" <PCH### [at] yahoocom>
wrote:
> Great job, but shouldn't the clouds have thickness (I don't see any).
I do. They aren't towering stratocumolus, but they obviously have
thickness. They have leading edges that are brightly lit, and darker
bodies and edges away from the light. I've seen clouds like this many,
many times, they are more common then the thunderhead type.
> This scene easily shows the problem of sky_sphere, as this sky is a sphere.
This isn't a sky_sphere. If the author used the technique I used in the
POV 3.5 demo file, it tries to simulate the actual atmosphere, with
shells of air and clouds centered far below the origin. It looks like he
did a lot better at it then I did, though... ;-)
> POV's problem is that sky_sphere centers on the origin, but needs to center
> far below the camera.
The sky_sphere feature doesn't "center" anywhere. It is not an object,
it is just a background feature. And it can't do effects like this, just
pigments.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Great job, but shouldn't the clouds have thickness (I don't see any).
>
> I do. They aren't towering stratocumolus, but they obviously have
> thickness. They have leading edges that are brightly lit, and darker
> bodies and edges away from the light. I've seen clouds like this many,
> many times, they are more common then the thunderhead type.
I can't see the tops, (they appear to be flat on the sphere
> > This scene easily shows the problem of sky_sphere, as this sky is a
sphere.
>
> This isn't a sky_sphere. If the author used the technique I used in the
> POV 3.5 demo file, it tries to simulate the actual atmosphere, with
> shells of air and clouds centered far below the origin. It looks like he
> did a lot better at it then I did, though... ;-)
>
>
> > POV's problem is that sky_sphere centers on the origin, but needs to
center
> > far below the camera.
>
> The sky_sphere feature doesn't "center" anywhere. It is not an object,
> it is just a background feature. And it can't do effects like this, just
> pigments.
It appears to center on the camera, wherever the camera is. This creates
the effect of clouds ramming into the horizon.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"RAY" <PCH### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message news:3c8ffea4$1@news.povray.org...
<snip>
[looks out of window] Hmm, I can't see the tops of the clouds out there either.
I'd suggest you take a look at the source for this scene - the clouds are media
contained within the difference of two spheres, which makes for a fairly
adaptable technique...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c8ffea4$1@news.povray.org>, "RAY" <PCH### [at] yahoocom>
wrote:
> I can't see the tops, (they appear to be flat on the sphere
Well, that's because you are under them...you can only see the top of
this kind of cloud if you are in an aircraft. (or spacecraft, I guess)
Otherwise, the top is obscured by...the bottom and sides. And these
clouds quite clearly have sides.
> It appears to center on the camera, wherever the camera is. This creates
> the effect of clouds ramming into the horizon.
It only uses the direction of a ray, so you could say it "centers" on
wherever the ray started from. Its coloration is equivalent to that of a
unit-sphere centered on the origin, but it is just a background, not
centered anywhere.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Given the render time you reported I suspect you have background programs running, and
perhaps your render priority is set low. My
900Mhz Duron rendered the same image faster.
Grim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
