 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dustin wrote:
> Thanks to Dan P's post I was able to create in POV Ray 3.1
> a brushed metal that looked very similar to the "before" picture, which I
> was entirely happy with. But I have since upgraded to POV Ray 3.5 and the
> EXACT same settings produce the horrible mess in the "after" picture. My
> normal settings are:
>
> normal {
> granite
> 0.1
> scale <0.1, 20, 1>
> }
>
> I've tried changing changing the depth, scale, rotation, bump depth,
> accuracy, noise generator, and turbulence but I can't achieve the same
> effect in 3.5, what am I doing wrong?
Looks like the light source is /in/ the object somehow...?
--
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
>
> First of all, it doesn't look like the two scenes are the same, lighting,
> angle, everythings seems slightly different. Have you tried
> "no_bump_scale" yet?
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
They aren't the same, I didn't render the "before" scene, that is from
Dan P's post. I'll post is actual sample from 3.1 and 3.5 (same
settings).
I tried "no_bump_scale" it does not seem to make any difference :(
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'difference.jpg' (146 KB)
Preview of image 'difference.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> There were changes in the noise generating routines in POV 3.5, try
> adding:
>
> global_settings{
> noise_generator 1
> }
>
> To your scene to see if it helps.
>
Thanks, I tried that, it didn't make a difference.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dustin wrote:
> Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
>
>>First of all, it doesn't look like the two scenes are the same, lighting,
>>angle, everythings seems slightly different. Have you tried
>>"no_bump_scale" yet?
>>
>>Regards,
>>Tim
>>
>
> They aren't the same, I didn't render the "before" scene, that is from
> Dan P's post. I'll post is actual sample from 3.1 and 3.5 (same
> settings).
> I tried "no_bump_scale" it does not seem to make any difference :(
DAMN, that is a cool lookin' leg!
--
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> DAMN, that is a cool lookin' leg!
Thanks, I *WAS* happy with how things were turning out until I decided to
upgrade in the middle of the model. Could you post the code to your
'brushed metal scene' example? Maybe I can compare and find out where I am
going wrong...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Interesting problem. I've just tried it out comparing 3.5 to Megapov 0.7 (based
on pov 3.1) and I think I have the solution, try this:
normal {
pigment_pattern {
granite
scale <0.1, 20, 1>
} 0.1
}
I've noticed that pov seems to generate bumps by comparing samples of the bump
pattern to estimate a gradient (by sampling a fixed distance away). It would
appear 3.1 evaluates this sample distance after the pattern has been scaled,
whereas 3.5 does it before the scaling. This means if you scale a pattern in 3.5
the bumps will appear to scale, whereas in 3.1 they will alter as they scale
(becoming smoother as you scale down).
In any case using pigment_pattern allows you to manipulate the pattern before
pov samples a normal from it. One trick I use is: normal { pigment_pattern {
granite scale f } 1 scale 1/f }, so that by varying the value of f you control
the severity of the bumps.
Hope that helps
--
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com
"Dustin" <xkx### [at] excite com> wrote in message news:408da502@news.povray.org...
> Thanks to Dan P's post I was able to create in POV Ray 3.1
> a brushed metal that looked very similar to the "before" picture, which I
> was entirely happy with. But I have since upgraded to POV Ray 3.5 and the
> EXACT same settings produce the horrible mess in the "after" picture. My
> normal settings are:
>
> normal {
> granite
> 0.1
> scale <0.1, 20, 1>
> }
>
> I've tried changing changing the depth, scale, rotation, bump depth,
> accuracy, noise generator, and turbulence but I can't achieve the same
> effect in 3.5, what am I doing wrong?
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tek wrote:
> Interesting problem. I've just tried it out comparing 3.5 to Megapov 0.7
> (based on pov 3.1) and I think I have the solution, try this:
>
> normal {
> pigment_pattern {
> granite
> scale <0.1, 20, 1>
> } 0.1
> }
>
> I've noticed that pov seems to generate bumps by comparing samples of the
> bump pattern to estimate a gradient (by sampling a fixed distance away).
> It would appear 3.1 evaluates this sample distance after the pattern has
> been scaled, whereas 3.5 does it before the scaling. This means if you
> scale a pattern in 3.5 the bumps will appear to scale, whereas in 3.1 they
> will alter as they scale (becoming smoother as you scale down).
>
> In any case using pigment_pattern allows you to manipulate the pattern
> before pov samples a normal from it. One trick I use is: normal {
> pigment_pattern { granite scale f } 1 scale 1/f }, so that by varying the
> value of f you control the severity of the bumps.
>
> Hope that helps
Thanks alot, I think this may work, I am trying to set it up now...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dustin wrote:
>
>
>>DAMN, that is a cool lookin' leg!
>
>
> Thanks, I *WAS* happy with how things were turning out until I decided to
> upgrade in the middle of the model. Could you post the code to your
> 'brushed metal scene' example? Maybe I can compare and find out where I am
> going wrong...
Doh :-( When I read newsgroups, I keep a file on my desktop called
"test.pov" that is just a temporary file for code. It has long since
been overwritten :-(
There wasn't anything special outside of the original code I put up
there, though. Just a plane w/checker pattern and two lights.
--
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tek <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> In any case using pigment_pattern allows you to manipulate the pattern before
> pov samples a normal from it. One trick I use is: normal { pigment_pattern {
> granite scale f } 1 scale 1/f }, so that by varying the value of f you control
> the severity of the bumps.
A simpler solution is to adjust the accuracy of the normal calculations.
This is done by adding the keyword 'accuracy' to your normal block
followed by a small float (try things like .01 and smaller).
The normal calculations have changed a bit from 3.1 to 3.5 but adjusting
the accuracy will usually give you the same result as in 3.1.
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh, I didn't realise I could do that! Thanks!!!
Okay ignore the second part of my message, but my solution for this particular
case should help because it's non-uniform scaling.
--
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:4090ffb6@news.povray.org...
> Tek <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> > In any case using pigment_pattern allows you to manipulate the pattern
before
> > pov samples a normal from it. One trick I use is: normal { pigment_pattern {
> > granite scale f } 1 scale 1/f }, so that by varying the value of f you
control
> > the severity of the bumps.
>
> A simpler solution is to adjust the accuracy of the normal calculations.
> This is done by adding the keyword 'accuracy' to your normal block
> followed by a small float (try things like .01 and smaller).
> The normal calculations have changed a bit from 3.1 to 3.5 but adjusting
> the accuracy will usually give you the same result as in 3.1.
>
> --
> #macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
> N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
> N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
