 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/02/2011 3:26 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 24.02.2011 12:19, schrieb Stephen:
>> I'm having problems with the mm_per_unit as it seems to need adjusted
>> WRT each mesh. I'm running tests as we speak.
>
> Nope - I'm pretty sure that's not the case.
>
I have a vague idea that it might be related to the scale of the model
not the actual size of the model in PovRay. For instance I got better
looking results with Vicky when I set the mm_per_unit as if she was
1676.4 mm not the 228.6 mm she was scaled in the scene.
But then you wrote the code and what do I know. So I am experimenting
with mm_per_unit, scattering values and material scales.
> There are some issues though that may be related to what you experience;
> for instance, SSLT doesn't yet know about unions, and needs meshes to be
> closed for realism; as your lamp Vicky comes in partial meshes, that's
> currently my best bet for what might cause you trouble.
a DFX which is a single mesh. When I exported her as an OBJ the joins
into my models.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 24.02.2011 17:24, schrieb Stephen:
> I have a vague idea that it might be related to the scale of the model
> not the actual size of the model in PovRay. For instance I got better
> looking results with Vicky when I set the mm_per_unit as if she was
> 1676.4 mm not the 228.6 mm she was scaled in the scene.
> But then you wrote the code and what do I know. So I am experimenting
> with mm_per_unit, scattering values and material scales.
I'd recommend leaving mm_per_unit as it /should/ be. If that doesn't
give you the proper look, it's the scattering parameters that need tweaking.
> a DFX which is a single mesh. When I exported her as an OBJ the joins
> into my models.
No need to have it /perfectly/ closed. As far as that goes, SSLT should
be rather robust.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> Am 24.02.2011 17:24, schrieb Stephen:
>
> > I have a vague idea that it might be related to the scale of the model
> > not the actual size of the model in PovRay. For instance I got better
> > looking results with Vicky when I set the mm_per_unit as if she was
> > 1676.4 mm not the 228.6 mm she was scaled in the scene.
> > But then you wrote the code and what do I know. So I am experimenting
> > with mm_per_unit, scattering values and material scales.
>
> I'd recommend leaving mm_per_unit as it /should/ be. If that doesn't
> give you the proper look, it's the scattering parameters that need tweaking.
>
Does SSLT support Texture Maps where each texture has its own finish and
subsurface {values}?
> > a DFX which is a single mesh. When I exported her as an OBJ the joins
> > into my models.
>
> No need to have it /perfectly/ closed. As far as that goes, SSLT should
> be rather robust.
Good, the mesh I'm using has a few triangles that are only connected at two
vertexes.
To give you an idea of what the mesh is like:
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'buddha_01d2_0006.jpg' (73 KB)
Preview of image 'buddha_01d2_0006.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/24/2011 03:37 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 24.02.2011 17:24, schrieb Stephen:
>
>> I have a vague idea that it might be related to the scale of the model
>> not the actual size of the model in PovRay. For instance I got better
>> looking results with Vicky when I set the mm_per_unit as if she was
>> 1676.4 mm not the 228.6 mm she was scaled in the scene.
>> But then you wrote the code and what do I know. So I am experimenting
>> with mm_per_unit, scattering values and material scales.
>
> I'd recommend leaving mm_per_unit as it /should/ be. If that doesn't
> give you the proper look, it's the scattering parameters that need
> tweaking.
are you implying the default value here? I'm trying to pick up some of
these comments in the doc entry.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 25.02.2011 15:40, schrieb Jim Holsenback:
>> I'd recommend leaving mm_per_unit as it /should/ be. If that doesn't
>> give you the proper look, it's the scattering parameters that need
>> tweaking.
>
> are you implying the default value here? I'm trying to pick up some of
> these comments in the doc entry.
No, I'm implying the "true" scale of the scene.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
