 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] inter nlDOTnet> wrote:
> Thanks guys!!
>
> Yes, like you all mention, there are all kind of problems showing here. This
> was just a quick render so see how the ship would perform/look.
>
> Stephen:
> Yes, what you see probably, is the prow coming out of a wave. But there seem
> also to be some spray in front. It looks kind of weird indeed.
> And yes, the waves seem to come from the left. So the ship is tacking upwind
> :-) I'm kidding. In this situation the sails should at least be turned the
> other way round. And the ship leans the wrong side. Liek I said, I didn't
> know how the environment would look...
>
Now you know which way the sea is running you can place your ship
work :-)
Our IT department lost my network drive then managed to lock me out of the
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
An angry sea like that deserves an angrier sky. Having said that... I like
it! :)
--
Dan
GoofyGraffix.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot spake:
> Here is an image with Tek's rough sea, and my Moray built VOC ship (in
> need of an upgrade!). Only the flags were not rendered due to a uv_mapping
> issue in version 3.7.
>
> total render time (v.3.7) about 2 hours, with a HP Media Center PC;
> Pentium D 2x3GHz
>
> Not the most perfect scene, but just to show off :-)
>
> Thomas
Ooooo.....
--
Stefan Viljoen
Software Support Technician / Programmer
Polar Design Solutions
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht
news:web.45632933a1eb5d8bf1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
> Now you know which way the sea is running you can place your ship
> accordingly. Don't worry about the other comments I've had a rough day at
> work :-)
> Our IT department lost my network drive then managed to lock me out of the
> network for 4 hours. You just can't get the staff nowadays.
>
Aah, the good old days of quill pens and ink, scratching slowly but
determinedly on seasoned parchments!! :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht
> news:web.45632933a1eb5d8bf1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
>
> > Now you know which way the sea is running you can place your ship
> > accordingly. Don't worry about the other comments I've had a rough day at
> > work :-)
> > Our IT department lost my network drive then managed to lock me out of the
> > network for 4 hours. You just can't get the staff nowadays.
> >
>
> Aah, the good old days of quill pens and ink, scratching slowly but
> determinedly on seasoned parchments!! :-)
>
> Thomas
Humph!
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht
news:web.45643206a1eb5d8bf1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
>
> Humph!
> Now you're showing your age :-) I only go back as far as dip pens
>
<cackle! cackle!> Just only 1..60 years old, young man!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Experimenting further.
To align apparent wind direction and ship behaviour, I mirrored the
isosurface's function around x. Of course, I could have turned the ship, but
that is the easy way out and I prefer to experiment.
What I did was change: f_ridged_mf( (x+y*.2)/4, Q+y*.4, z/4, etc. into:
f_ridged_mf( ((x+y*.2)/4)/-1, Q+y*.4, z/4, etc
and: (f_spotted(x/5+y/5, 0, z/5)-.5)*1 into: (f_spotted((x/5+y/5)/-1, 0,
z/5)-.5)*1
To stay on the save side, I added the parenteses before multiplying by -1.
This should be faster than mirroring the isosurface itself. But maybe this
introduces unwanted things. What do you think?
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'Tek_RoughSea.jpg' (180 KB)
Preview of image 'Tek_RoughSea.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> Experimenting further.
> To align apparent wind direction and ship behaviour, I mirrored the
> isosurface's function around x. Of course, I could have turned the ship, but
> that is the easy way out and I prefer to experiment.
>
> What I did was change: f_ridged_mf( (x+y*.2)/4, Q+y*.4, z/4, etc. into:
> f_ridged_mf( ((x+y*.2)/4)/-1, Q+y*.4, z/4, etc
>
> and: (f_spotted(x/5+y/5, 0, z/5)-.5)*1 into: (f_spotted((x/5+y/5)/-1, 0,
> z/5)-.5)*1
>
> To stay on the save side, I added the parenteses before multiplying by -1.
> This should be faster than mirroring the isosurface itself. But maybe this
> introduces unwanted things. What do you think?
>
> Thomas
The sea looks very different, most of the white horses have gone and the
noticed that yourself.
What does the scene look like if the camera is placed on the other side of
your ship, should it not look like the way it was before?
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht
news:web.45644c0da1eb5d8bf1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
>>
>> Thomas
> The sea looks very different, most of the white horses have gone and the
> foreground is smooth. Quite reflective in fact. But then you'll have
> noticed that yourself.
> What does the scene look like if the camera is placed on the other side of
> your ship, should it not look like the way it was before?
>
Yes, you are right! I just discovered a moment ago that I forgot to mirror
the function in the texture too!! :-(
That accounts for the loss of white horses. A new image is being brewed on
the POV burner. I shall post it later this afternoon. From what I can
already see, the white horses are back!! :-)
One reason why I did not want to move the ship (or the camera, for the time
being) is that I like the light incidence on it. However, it is mainly
because I want to play a bit with the functions and see what happens in the
present context.
I don't know, presently about the foreground. There seems to be a large
swale here. Later I shall lift the camera to see how it looks from above and
if this is recurring elsewhere.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
One other thing in the original post of the modified scene you said that you
multiplied by -1 when you actually divided by -1. I know the results are
the same (I hope) is there any particular reason?
Actually there were two other things. On my works monitor the image looks a
little washed out, what gamma settings are you using?
Stephen
> Yes, you are right! I just discovered a moment ago that I forgot to mirror
> the function in the texture too!! :-(
>
> That accounts for the loss of white horses. A new image is being brewed on
> the POV burner. I shall post it later this afternoon. From what I can
> already see, the white horses are back!! :-)
>
> One reason why I did not want to move the ship (or the camera, for the time
> being) is that I like the light incidence on it. However, it is mainly
> because I want to play a bit with the functions and see what happens in the
> present context.
>
> I don't know, presently about the foreground. There seems to be a large
> swale here. Later I shall lift the camera to see how it looks from above and
> if this is recurring elsewhere.
>
> Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
