 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'Tek_RoughSea.jpg' (161 KB)
Preview of image 'Tek_RoughSea.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] inter nlDOTnet> wrote:
> 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
Nice Thomas, but…
Is there some problem with the transparency of the sea at the prow of the
ship?
The waves look like the wind is blowing from the left of the photograph :-)
but the ships sails are filled from the back and it is leaning to the
starboard and into the waves.
stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> 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 :-)
>
Wow! This image could very likely become poster worthy! Keep it up!
I'd like to use Tek's sea combined with Jaime's Project Tierra (a la 'Clean
Slate'), then render it MegaPOV XRS, just to show off :-) But you're way
ahead of me :-)
Rock on,
George
http://www.gammaburst.net
> Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> 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
NICE!
I like the ship, I like the sea.. sky needs to change....
And... I wanted to mention earlier but I forgot to... the transparency seems
to high for this kind of water.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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...
George:
Thanks. No, this is nothing really special :-) Just experimenting to see how
things would look. I wait for your XRS!!!
EagleSun:
Thanks too. Transparency: see also Stephen's. I don't think transparency is
an issue, but I have other colors in mind... The ship is rather basic (I
think now, not when I built it!). The sky is Tek's. Could be something else
of course.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> 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
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.
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!
Now you’re showing your age :-) I only go back as far as dip pens
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
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?
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:
Oh! We learn by our mistakes and I’ve learned a lot :-)
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht
news:web.456458a1a1eb5d8bf1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
> "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
>
> Oh! We learn by our mistakes and I've learned a lot :-)
> 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?
Ah! According to the documentation (c paragraph 2.3.3.3.9) transformations
on functions are different. So multiplying x by 2 is given as (x/2, y, z).
See the docs for more details. This is a very important paragraph because it
allows you to manipulate the functions as you want. It helped me enormously
in building my Geomorph macro a couple of years ago (see:
http://povray.tirnalong.com/ow.asp?GeoMorph ).
> Actually there were two other things. On my works monitor the image looks
> a
> little washed out, what gamma settings are you using?
>
I have the same when first viewing the image in WindowsExplorer for
instance. Saving it again in PSP without doing anything generally takes care
of the problem. It come from the new gamma handling in version 3.7. It has
been replaced by display_gamma in the ini, and set at 2.2. If I read the
docs right, presently 'assumed_gamma = 1' is automatically translated to
'display_gamma = 2.2' but I am not sure about this. Still a thing to
investigate.
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.456458a1a1eb5d8bf1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
> > "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> >
> > Oh! We learn by our mistakes and I've learned a lot :-)
> > 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?
>
> Ah! According to the documentation (c paragraph 2.3.3.3.9) transformations
> on functions are different. So multiplying x by 2 is given as (x/2, y, z).
> See the docs for more details. This is a very important paragraph because it
> allows you to manipulate the functions as you want. It helped me enormously
> in building my Geomorph macro a couple of years ago (see:
> http://povray.tirnalong.com/ow.asp?GeoMorph ).
That makes sense to me <g> I don't do hard things.
> > Actually there were two other things. On my works monitor the image looks
> > a
> > little washed out, what gamma settings are you using?
> >
> I have the same when first viewing the image in WindowsExplorer for
> instance. Saving it again in PSP without doing anything generally takes care
> of the problem. It come from the new gamma handling in version 3.7. It has
> been replaced by display_gamma in the ini, and set at 2.2. If I read the
> docs right, presently 'assumed_gamma = 1' is automatically translated to
> 'display_gamma = 2.2' but I am not sure about this. Still a thing to
> investigate.
>
Interesting, Thanks
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> 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
Nice pic, but the captain will be court martialed and keel hauled for
running full sail in that kind of weather merely to appease your artistic
vision!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:27:04 +0100, "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet>
wrote:
>
>"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
>
Young man! Why thank you. You "silver surfer". you :-)
I'm not far behind you only 4 years.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:02:36 +0100, "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet>
wrote:
>I have the same when first viewing the image in WindowsExplorer for
>instance. Saving it again in PSP without doing anything generally takes care
>of the problem. It come from the new gamma handling in version 3.7. It has
>been replaced by display_gamma in the ini, and set at 2.2. If I read the
>docs right, presently 'assumed_gamma = 1' is automatically translated to
>'display_gamma = 2.2' but I am not sure about this. Still a thing to
>investigate.
FYI
At home using my laptop I need to do a gamma correction of 0.38 with PSP. It
then looks dramatic & great.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"gonzo" <rgo### [at] lansetcom> schreef in bericht
news:web.4564a442a1eb5d8ba0c272b50@news.povray.org...
>
> Nice pic, but the captain will be court martialed and keel hauled for
> running full sail in that kind of weather merely to appease your artistic
> vision!
>
Well, you know how it went in those days: the captain was subject to the
official VOC trader onboard (in this case, me) who told him what to do! They
often hated each other, but in most cases things went well.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> schreef in bericht
news:a0e9m29nki4bu5ei6rbij87smtouu27frh@4ax.com...
>>
>
> Young man! Why thank you. You "silver surfer". you :-)
> I'm not far behind you only 4 years.
>
Ah ha!!! Still the prerogative of age!! :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> schreef in bericht
news:pqe9m2d6nep75994s9fhm5lujkolg35k5b@4ax.com...
>>
> FYI
> At home using my laptop I need to do a gamma correction of 0.38 with PSP.
> It
> then looks dramatic & great.
>
Interesting.
I shall have to investigate this somehow. At this stage I can tell the
following (just using the current v.3.6 global settings and rendering in
v.3.7):
- 'As is', the image looks fine in the render window;
- in the viewer of Windows Explorer, the image looks washed out;
- in PSP, the image looks fine, identical to the render window;
- saving the image in PSP (without changing anything) and opening it in the
WinEx viewer, the image looks fine;
Now, of course, this is all on one machine. I have not (yet) tested it by
opening the image on another PC.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Tek's sea revisited - third visit
Date: 24 Nov 2006 08:03:55
Message: <4566edbb@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I keep being fascinated by Tek's rough sea.
This is a third visit to that region. Just playing around. The only thing I
changed here is cancelling the -30*y rotation of the isosurface in Tek's
original code.
Imo, the issue now is one of scale with the ship. I think that the ship
should be somewhat larger. On the other hand, the image is quite dramatic
with the ship plunging in the trough between two waves. In the forefront,
there is also what appears to be a trough.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'Tek_RoughSea_03.jpg' (53 KB)
Preview of image 'Tek_RoughSea_03.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> I keep being fascinated by Tek's rough sea.
>
> This is a third visit to that region. Just playing around. The only thing I
> changed here is cancelling the -30*y rotation of the isosurface in Tek's
> original code.
> Imo, the issue now is one of scale with the ship. I think that the ship
> should be somewhat larger. On the other hand, the image is quite dramatic
> with the ship plunging in the trough between two waves. In the forefront,
> there is also what appears to be a trough.
>
> Thomas
Yes!
Running afor the wind with all sails set.
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
