Le 2010-06-09 19:56, SharkD a écrit :
> I adjusted all the pigments to compensate for assumed_gamma. The scene
> is no longer as washed-out and bright.
>
> Another problem I haven't fixed yet are the streets. For some reason
> they show up as black when they instead should be gray. I don't know
> why. I thought I fixed all coincident/overlapping surfaces.
>
This one is ok, if a little dark. The previous one was not washed out, 
at least on my screen. In fact, it was much more contrasted.

I see a major problem: the ground should curves along the cylinder, now, 
it's faceted.

Again, I maintain that planet's ground city like streets and the 
presence of cars is just plain wrong in that kind of environment.

You use boxes for the buildings, it may be beter to use prisms; at least 
for the taler ones, over 5 stories high, and have those buildings taper 
as they go up. Low buildings, 1 to 4 stories, can probably do with 
simple boxes.



Alain

Post a reply to this message

Am 10.06.2010 18:34, schrieb Alain:
> Le 2010-06-09 19:56, SharkD a écrit :
>> I adjusted all the pigments to compensate for assumed_gamma. The scene
>> is no longer as washed-out and bright.
...
>>
> This one is ok, if a little dark. The previous one was not washed out,
> at least on my screen. In fact, it was much more contrasted.

?
I disagree. (Well, then again I don't know your screen ;-))

Post a reply to this message

Made the buildings larger, the roads narrower.

-- 
http://isometricland.com

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'gh_scene_spinner_cubemap_k.png' (439 KB)

Preview of image 'gh_scene_spinner_cubemap_k.png'

"Stephen" <mca### [at] aolDOTcom> schreef in bericht 
news:4c10a076@news.povray.org...
>
> If Mike does that then it may be realistic but it will be boring to look 
> at. IMO realistic space scenes show one feature while hiding most others 
> due to differences in scale. Do you remember the posts from a few years 

> Having said that the ground could be s bit further away ;-)
>

Yes indeed. Bill, and myself, did some exploration that way back then; and 
there was some scenes based on Arthur Clarke's Rama iirc, some years ago 
too. It is not easy, fairly impossible, to show all, so a shrewd choice of 
viewpoint and scene cutout to suggest - more than to show - the vast 
dimensions of such artificial structures is needed.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"SharkD" <pos### [at] gmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:4c118153@news.povray.org...
> Made the buildings larger, the roads narrower.
>

Hmmm.... yes and no. The sense of scale is starting to come nicely but the 
ground should be curved around the cylinder and not faceted, with the 
buildings abruptly at an angle above the pedwalks, and the park as a 
completely flat area in front of us. I think cars would have difficulty in 
maneuvering across the obvious angles in the roads while driving 
cross-cylinder. :-)

It would do as a cartoonesk scene I guess but not as the more realistic one 
here.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 11/06/2010 8:32 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "Stephen"<mca### [at] aolDOTcom>  schreef in bericht
> news:4c10a076@news.povray.org...
>>
>> If Mike does that then it may be realistic but it will be boring to look
>> at. IMO realistic space scenes show one feature while hiding most others
>> due to differences in scale. Do you remember the posts from a few years

>> Having said that the ground could be s bit further away ;-)
>>
>
> Yes indeed. Bill, and myself, did some exploration that way back then; and
> there was some scenes based on Arthur Clarke's Rama iirc, some years ago
> too. It is not easy, fairly impossible, to show all, so a shrewd choice of
> viewpoint and scene cutout to suggest - more than to show - the vast
> dimensions of such artificial structures is needed.
>

I think that, that is the reason I gave up realistic modelling of scenes 




-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolDOTcom> wrote:
> On 11/06/2010 8:32 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> > "Stephen"<mca### [at] aolDOTcom>  schreef in bericht
> >> If Mike does that then it may be realistic but it will be boring to look
> >> at. IMO realistic space scenes show one feature while hiding most others
> >> due to differences in scale. Do you remember the posts from a few years

> >> Having said that the ground could be s bit further away ;-)
> >
> > Yes indeed. Bill, and myself, did some exploration that way back then; and
> > there was some scenes based on Arthur Clarke's Rama iirc, some years ago
> > too. It is not easy, fairly impossible, to show all, so a shrewd choice of
> > viewpoint and scene cutout to suggest - more than to show - the vast
> > dimensions of such artificial structures is needed.
> >
> I think that, that is the reason I gave up realistic modelling of scenes



Ah, but I think Mike's approach with the interactive VR is exactly the way to do
a space habitat. I think the way the perspective distorts the edge of the frame
while panning gives the viewer an instinct for the fov that can be very tricky
for non-rectilinear geometries. I'm going to try this with my ringworld - and
I'll also dig out the O'Neill habitat that I started constructing some years
ago. (As an aside, this had a simple uniform fog inside it, and it worked very
well as a depth cue!)

Bill

Post a reply to this message

On 11/06/2010 1:41 PM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aolDOTcom>  wrote:
>> On 11/06/2010 8:32 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> "Stephen"<mca### [at] aolDOTcom>   schreef in bericht
>>>> If Mike does that then it may be realistic but it will be boring to look
>>>> at. IMO realistic space scenes show one feature while hiding most others
>>>> due to differences in scale. Do you remember the posts from a few years

>>>> Having said that the ground could be s bit further away ;-)
>>>
>>> Yes indeed. Bill, and myself, did some exploration that way back then; and
>>> there was some scenes based on Arthur Clarke's Rama iirc, some years ago
>>> too. It is not easy, fairly impossible, to show all, so a shrewd choice of
>>> viewpoint and scene cutout to suggest - more than to show - the vast
>>> dimensions of such artificial structures is needed.
>>>
>> I think that, that is the reason I gave up realistic modelling of scenes


>
> Ah, but I think Mike's approach with the interactive VR is exactly the way to do
> a space habitat.

I agree with you. I think this is an interesting experiment. It makes me 
wonder what a game engine would make of it.

> I think the way the perspective distorts the edge of the frame
> while panning gives the viewer an instinct for the fov that can be very tricky
> for non-rectilinear geometries.


would make you seasick driving down those roads.

> I'm going to try this with my ringworld - and
> I'll also dig out the O'Neill habitat that I started constructing some years
> ago. (As an aside, this had a simple uniform fog inside it, and it worked very
> well as a depth cue!)
>

I look forward to seeing it.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolDOTcom> wrote:
> I agree with you. I think this is an interesting experiment. It makes me
> wonder what a game engine would make of it.

That reminds me - ever play any of the Halo games? There's a pretty good
rendition of a ringworld, and beautiful to look at. I kept getting shot up cos I
was too busy ogling the scenery :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 11/06/2010 2:38 PM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aolDOTcom>  wrote:
>> I agree with you. I think this is an interesting experiment. It makes me
>> wonder what a game engine would make of it.
>
> That reminds me - ever play any of the Halo games? There's a pretty good
> rendition of a ringworld, and beautiful to look at. I kept getting shot up cos I
> was too busy ogling the scenery :-)
>
>

No, the last game I played was Doom II, Doom III was too dark for me to 




-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message