95% of the modelling is done (just controls and details to add).
Textures need working on.
Background is ready but (if I understand the rules correctly I can't show
how things fit together - it counts as pre-publishing) see my next post for
a bit of it.

Comments welcome.

John

--
Run Fast
Run Free
Run Linux

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'HighView.jpg' (96 KB) Download 'BackView.jpg' (90 KB)

Preview of image 'HighView.jpg'

Preview of image 'BackView.jpg'

I'm not sure what you mean by "pre-publishing".  I'm new to this, but
everything I recall reading in the rules and in the FAQ don't mention it.

You cannot submit a scene which you created prior to the current
competition.  In other words, if you created a really cool steam engine
scene 3 months ago, you cannot submit it.  However, you could still use
objects from that scene.  Is that what you're referring to?  If so, it's
perfectly fine to show your final result in the newsgroup here, from my
understanding.

However, I'm reluctant to do that simply because everyone will get a chance
to pick it apart before the voting starts.  Some people may be influenced by
other people's comments.  Or maybe I just don't take criticism well.  I've
spent lots of time getting things to look the way I want, so if someone says
it shouldn't look a certain, I may be inclined to disagree.  Not that I'm a
jerk (I hope), but I don't want too many comments floating over my head when
I finally submit the image to the IRTC.  This way, I have only myself to
blame if people don't like it.  I can't say, "It would have been fine, if I
hadn't taken Bob's advice and changed the lighting..."  No offense to Bob.
;-)

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message

"Slashdolt" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
news:3e43d368$1@news.povray.org...

> objects from that scene.  Is that what you're referring to?  If so, it's
> perfectly fine to show your final result in the newsgroup here, from my
> understanding.
>
> However, I'm reluctant to do that simply because everyone will get a
chance
> to pick it apart before the voting starts.

You're probably right; I have a tendency to read the wrong meaning into
rules anyway.  - Got me into a lot of trouble at school :-)

Comments about model itself still wanted, tho'

John

--
Run Fast
Run Free
Run Linux

Post a reply to this message

3e43dcf3$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Slashdolt" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
> news:3e43d368$1@news.povray.org...
>
>
> Comments about model itself still wanted, tho'
>
Nice modeling though I don't see it very well: shadows are very dark.

A lot of people show nearly finished IRTC images here.
The meaning of the rule is: make an image for IRTC and don't take an old
image.

Marc

Post a reply to this message

I'll do my best to comment on the model itself.

Not knowing anything at all about these types of contraptions, you make it
seem believable to me in a mechanical sense, so I won't comment on that.

You mention that the textures need work, so you already recognize that.  You
might try using some nearly imperceptible surface normals, simply to make it
look like tiny paint droplets on the painted surfaces.  It might not help,
but sometimes these things can make an image have a much more realistic
appearance.

Also, the finishes need work (perhaps you were lumping that into the
"textures need working on".  Painted surfaces should have more reflection,
not just specular reflection.

Since this was done with CSG (wasn't it?), you probably don't want to
rewrite the model to use isosurfaces, but by doing so, you could create
"lumpier" metal (for lack of a better term), which was common 100 years ago
or more.  Maybe that same effect could be created with surface normals
(which would certainly render faster).  I'm a big fan of isosurfaces and the
isocsg library, but because of speed constraints they don't always make
sense to use, not to mention the fact that they are much more difficult to
program/script, imho.

Just some thoughts.  It looks like it's coming along very well!  Good luck!

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message

I've "published" some of my IRTC-entries here,
even in their final state. I interpret the rules that you
may not create an image, and at some point,
submit it when the topic fits. Since you're image was
made for the IRTC, it is just obvious that you would
be asking for advice in these forums.

To be precise: "Iced Land" and "2 Lonely" were both
posted here in their finished version (although I'm not
100% sure bout 2 Lonely), and no one complained.
There was one response who said that my image didn't have
the same impact when he viewed it in the IRTC, so that
might be a disadvantage... :-)

Anyways, posting and asking for comments is something entirely
different than publishing, and I suspect the IRTC guys won't
take offense for that.

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

> > objects from that scene.  Is that what you're referring to?  If so, it's
> > perfectly fine to show your final result in the newsgroup here, from my
> > understanding.
> >
> > However, I'm reluctant to do that simply because everyone will get a
> chance
> > to pick it apart before the voting starts.
>
> You're probably right; I have a tendency to read the wrong meaning into
> rules anyway.  - Got me into a lot of trouble at school :-)
>
> Comments about model itself still wanted, tho'
>
> John
>
> --
> Run Fast
> Run Free
> Run Linux
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Slashdolt" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
news:3e43e45c$1@news.povray.org...

> might try using some nearly imperceptible surface normals, simply to make
it
> look like tiny paint droplets on the painted surfaces.  It might not help,
> but sometimes these things can make an image have a much more realistic
> appearance.

Good thought, I'll try that tonight and tomorrow and the day after.... :-)
> Also, the finishes need work (perhaps you were lumping that into the
> "textures need working on".  Painted surfaces should have more reflection,

yup, I lump finish with textures

> Since this was done with CSG (wasn't it?), you probably don't want to
> rewrite the model to use isosurfaces, but by doing so, you could create
> "lumpier" metal (for lack of a better term), which was common 100 years
ago
> or more.  Maybe that same effect could be created with surface normals
> (which would certainly render faster).  I'm a big fan of isosurfaces and
the
> isocsg library, but because of speed constraints they don't always make
> sense to use, not to mention the fact that they are much more difficult to
> program/script, imho.

 I might try that for some of the shapes esp. the big horizontal beam

> Just some thoughts.  It looks like it's coming along very well!  Good
luck!

Thanx for the kind words

John

--
Run Fast
Run Free
Run Linux

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:
>95% of the modelling is done (just controls and details to add).
>Textures need working on.
>Background is ready but (if I understand the rules correctly I can't show
>how things fit together - it counts as pre-publishing) see my next post for
>a bit of it.
>
>Comments welcome.
>
>John
>
>--
>Run Fast
>Run Free
>Run Linux
>


Way cool! Some surface normals would help make it look 'aged'.  And I just
happen to have some unused railroad tracks in my entry, can I borrow it?

(And provided I finish in time, probably not going to be able to get all the
detail I wanted... oh well, learning a lot, including the fact that
although sphere sweeps make very nice looking tack on a horse, I could have
done the same thing in Hamapatch in about a twentieth of the time...)

RG - so much to POV, so little time

Post a reply to this message

> (And provided I finish in time, probably not going to be able to get all
the
> detail I wanted... oh well, learning a lot, including the fact that
> although sphere sweeps make very nice looking tack on a horse, I could
have
> done the same thing in Hamapatch in about a twentieth of the time...)

I know what you mean there.  I did many things in this entry (including
sphere sweeps) which I find out later there is another, perhaps better way,
using other tools.  Unfortunately, I have yet to learn any of these tools,
and at this point in the competition, I don't really have the time to worry
about it.  That's one of the reasons I won't likely be in the next couple
competitions.  Heck, I just figured out what a sphere-sweep was a couple
weeks ago!

Good luck in the IRTC!

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message

Hi John,

is this an un-manned vehicle? I can't see a place for a driver!

The rod driving the wheel and the rod connecting the wheels should
not share a joint. When the joint is in the 9 o'clock position, the
vertical rod is driving the wheel with maximal momentum, but the
horizontal rod can't transfer this momentum to the other wheel
because it is crossing the axles. In the situation shown in your
picture, the wheels are well coupled, but there is nothing to
transfer, because the driving vertical rod has reached a point where
the motion reverses. I know it's difficult to correct this;
simply moving one of the joints + or - 90 degrees to an optimal
position will not work -- rods and joints would collide. A partial
'solution' might be to rotate to a position where this deficiency
is not so obvious ...

The front joint of the upper big red rods moves a little bit back and
forth, taking the connected black rods with them. But you have'nt
provided an axle to enable this motion. The same problem appears with
the black rods connecting the midpoint of the big red rods with black
cubes above the cylinders: they have to move, but can't. To me they
seem unneccessary, even worse: I think they would have to stretch to
follow the motion.

I would expect 4 tubes connected to each of the cylinders: inlet and
outlet for up-motion, inlet and outlet for down-motion. The inlets
need a device to synchronize the steam supply with the motion of
the wheels.

Some details you should add: 

  - a logo, name or something like that, painted or made of iron
  - a device to connect waggons (you don't plan to *push* them around,
    don't you?!)
  - the fire
  - clouds of smoke (black) and steam (white)
  - rails
  - brakes
  - oil lights

Suggestion for the time after IRTC: Animation!

   Sputnik

-- 

-------------------------------------

e-mail: fr### [at] computermuseumfh-kielde
-------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message