 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Marc van den Dikkenberg" wrote:
> I like the mountains better than those in take 2,
> but preferred the previous floor texture.
>
> The current one somehow looks too... rich. Like it
> is fertile soil, rather than completely dried out.
Hehe, obviously I'm not very good at textures. It's not supposed to be soil
at all, but rock...
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Feb 16)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Christoph Hormann
Subject: Re: Desert Landscape take 3 (89kbu)
Date: 18 Mar 2002 05:37:09
Message: <3C95C355.863AEA13@gmx.de>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
>
> As the cracked look of the texture really was all wrong, I had to rework the
> textures again. This time I've gotten something that I think look a bit more
> right, but I'm still not sure about it.
>
> Any suggestions for improvements (texture-wise or otherwise)?
>
I think the foreground is not so good in this version. You might try
using a separate higher resolution heightfield for it. Using such strong
and large scale normals is always problematic.
The foreground could also be less uniform i think. Since it's fairly flat
in total it's likely to have some young sediments between more rocky
parts.
Using the same pattern for the texture as for the heightfield might be
useful. You could make the lower parts more sandy while having the higher
parts made of stone material.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 13 Mar. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Best so far I think. Colors seem to change too much between foreground and
background, though.
-Shay
Rune <run### [at] mobilixnet dk> wrote in message
news:3c93dcb9@news.povray.org...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Great. Here's an issue though. The crackle pattern is good
for a playa (dry lake bed), but not on dunes as you have
modeled here. A playa is totally flat, except for the cracked
surface pattern. I think you want more of a sandy surface.
Looks wonderful any way.
Harold
"Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote in message
news:3c93dcb9@news.povray.org...
> As the cracked look of the texture really was all wrong, I had to rework
the
> textures again. This time I've gotten something that I think look a bit
more
> right, but I'm still not sure about it.
>
> Any suggestions for improvements (texture-wise or otherwise)?
>
> Rune
> --
> 3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
> Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Feb 16)
> POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
> POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote in message
news:3c947e3b$2@news.povray.org...
> "Slime" wrote:
> > These textures are really impressive... so are the shapes.
>
> Thanks! :)
>
> > Could you explain or at least give a hint as to what
> > functions and objects you're using for these?
>
> It's a single height_field made from a function.
How do you make a height_field with a functoin? I thought you MUST have an
image for a heightfield. I've been doing heightfields lately and the look
awful. :(
Corey
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 08:34:27 -0500, "Corey Woodworth" <cdw### [at] mpinetnet>
wrote:
> I thought you MUST have an
> image for a heightfield.
Not in 3.5
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news:tnfe9ugp9k9b4qv852e73geekocm2fhkod@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 08:34:27 -0500, "Corey Woodworth" <cdw### [at] mpinetnet>
> wrote:
> > I thought you MUST have an
> > image for a heightfield.
>
> Not in 3.5
cool, how do you do it?
> ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 09:00:55 -0500, "Corey Woodworth" <cdw### [at] mpinetnet>
wrote:
> > > I thought you MUST have an
> > > image for a heightfield.
> >
> > Not in 3.5
>
> cool, how do you do it?
Not wasting time for wishes but reading documentation ;-)
Check 6.7.11.16 chapter of documentation if you have 3.5 installed or read
http://www.povray.org/working-docs/id000196.html#6_7_11_16
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c974364$1@news.povray.org>,
"Corey Woodworth" <cdw### [at] mpinetnet> wrote:
> > > I thought you MUST have an
> > > image for a heightfield.
> >
> > Not in 3.5
>
> cool, how do you do it?
You use a function.
Not the answer you were looking for? ;-)
The syntax is described in the manual. As I recall, you replace the
image specification with "function xres, zres {BlahBlah}". Personally, I
think the height field macros in shapes.inc or isosurfaces produce
better results.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christoph Hormann" wrote:
> I think the foreground is not so good in this version.
> You might try using a separate higher resolution
> heightfield for it.
Maybe...
> using such strong and large scale normals is always
> problematic.
I'm not using very strong or large scale normals IMO.
> Using the same pattern for the texture as for the
> heightfield might be useful.
Wouldn't that just give identical results as if I used a gradient y pattern?
> You could make the lower parts more sandy while having
> the higher parts made of stone material.
Or the flatter parts more sandy. So far it was supposed to look like rock
everywhere, but I'll give a combined sand and rock look a try.
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Feb 16)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
