Mick Hazelgrove wrote:
> Great work Jaime.

   Thanks!

> Only one comment, the trees seem too similar both in shape, variety of
> species and distribution. But hell that's just nit picking, it's superb :-)

   Yes, there is only one object, scaled and rotated randomly. Next step 
with vegetation will be to add support for user-supplied objects, as 
well as giving some predefined ones. Hmmm... I'm thinking now I can use 
eval_pigment for the distribution/mix of the species too. Thanks!

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Marc Jacquier wrote:
> Just my piece of nitpick: you have (at least) two cloud types: cumulus and
> altostratus.

   Yes, I basically tried two types of clouds: cumulus and high altitude 
clouds.

> Altostrati should be way higher than cumuli and faded by atmospheric haze
> down to horizon.

  In fact the high layer is really much higher than the cumulus, but it 
seems not very noticeable. Perhaps the scale of the pattern has 
something to do with it...

> But it is just in a realistic aiming view, your clouds look as on a
> classical painting :-)

   Thanks!

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> But when you have one sky map you can rotate it arbitrarily around the 
> vertical axis to get different sun positions in azimuth. 

   Yes, I did not think on it, but you are as usual right.

> And for good results you would of course need a 
> high dynamic range map.

   Not necessarily, I think, only if you want very accurate radiosity. 
For me the biggest problem is the rendering time required to create an 
extensive collection of cloudscapes.

> The thing i am having trouble with is to get the 
> random parameter selection to *always* produce a scene that looks 
> reasonable.

   I think you are way too exigent... but I do not doubt you will figure 
out a solution. :)

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> 
>> And for good results you would of course need a high dynamic range map.
> 
> 
>   Not necessarily, I think, only if you want very accurate radiosity. 

For reflections (water) this can be important as well although you can 
trick quite a lot with reflection exponent.

> For me the biggest problem is the rendering time required to create an 
> extensive collection of cloudscapes.

I think for high resolution renders (which your recent scenes seem very 
suited for) this is probably not a solution anyway.

>> The thing i am having trouble with is to get the random parameter 
>> selection to *always* produce a scene that looks reasonable.
> 
> 
>   I think you are way too exigent... but I do not doubt you will figure 
> out a solution. :)

I am quite near to start my new LOTW-2 but i simply still get quite a 
lot of 'boring' scenes.  Since i plan to do 20 tests for every 
generation of which only 4 get selected this is not such a big problem 
though.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 01 May. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:

> 
>  > Is your guide post creation itself, or the look of creation?
> 
>   I'm not sure to understand correctly the question... if you ask for my 
> motivation, it is always to be surprised by the results, and this is 
> greatly accomplished with highly random scenes like this one. I even use 
> randomly guided cameras and lights placement on my "usual" scenes, as my 
> composition abilities are not well developed (but I can recognize a good 
> composition when I see it, which is enough with trial&error techniques).
> 
I'm not sure I understand the question either.  But you turned it into 
an understandable and interesting answer.  I think that what I was 
reaching for was somewhat rhetorical.  To wonder about what it really is 
that we find so pleasurable about landscape, and how that relates to 
your process.

Post a reply to this message