 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-7-2011 10:24, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Thomas de Groot<tenDOTlnDOTretniATtoorgedDOTt> wrote:
>> My question is if it would be possible, and if yes how, to drape this
>> prism over a (gently) undulating height_field? The vertical component
>> should remain vertical of course as they represent (foundation) walls.
>
> Extend the prism in y, and intersect with a copy of the heighfield offset in y?
>
>
Hmm... that might do it indeed. I have to experiment now, thanks for the
tip, Bill. I shall come back with results.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-7-2011 10:24, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Extend the prism in y, and intersect with a copy of the heighfield offset in y?
Yes indeed! That seems to do the trick. Here a small test image.
Thanks again!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'inkscape_mohenjodaro_test.png' (237 KB)
Preview of image 'inkscape_mohenjodaro_test.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tenDOTlnDOTretniATtoorgedDOTt> wrote:
> On 28-7-2011 10:24, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > Extend the prism in y, and intersect with a copy of the heighfield offset in y?
>
> Yes indeed! That seems to do the trick. Here a small test image.
Are you sure you used the heightfield correctly? In some areas, the walls seem
deeper than in others. Or is that deliberate? :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/28/2011 06:02 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 28-7-2011 10:24, Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> Extend the prism in y, and intersect with a copy of the heighfield
>> offset in y?
>
> Yes indeed! That seems to do the trick. Here a small test image.
>
> Thanks again!
>
> Thomas
>
cool ... very clever solution
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-7-2011 11:21, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Are you sure you used the heightfield correctly? In some areas, the walls seem
> deeper than in others. Or is that deliberate? :)
Not deliberate, but indeed a need for better coordination of the
parameters :-) On the other hand, it can be used for some height variations.
This image shows a better construction.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'inkscape_mohenjodaro_test.png' (316 KB)
Preview of image 'inkscape_mohenjodaro_test.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tenDOTlnDOTretniATtoorgedDOTt> wrote:
> Not deliberate, but indeed a need for better coordination of the
> parameters :-) On the other hand, it can be used for some height variations.
>
> This image shows a better construction.
Cool :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-7-2011 12:47, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> cool ... very clever solution
Isn't it? This will give me the possibility to populate my city of
Gancaloon in an easy manner. Only for overviews of course because the
buildings will not have enough details. I have now to devise a street
plan, and find a way to make the buildings of slightly different height,
probably by separate and superposed prisms. As everything can be based
on image_maps, this is going to be mainly GIMP work :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-7-2011 13:23, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Cool :)
>
>
<grin> I am going to feel like the Great Architect ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> The attached image is the render of a prism object (linear_sweep
> bezier_spline) generated by Inkscape from an image.
If you exported the drawing as image instead of contour you could
use it as height_field with varying heights coded in color (but maybe
not enough resolution for your large city). You could then add your
terrain height image to make it follow the terrain.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31-7-2011 3:07, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>> The attached image is the render of a prism object (linear_sweep
>> bezier_spline) generated by Inkscape from an image.
>
> If you exported the drawing as image instead of contour you could
> use it as height_field with varying heights coded in color (but maybe
> not enough resolution for your large city). You could then add your
> terrain height image to make it follow the terrain.
Yes, that is correct. I have used that technique in the past. The reason
I switched to prisms is that - in my experience - the height_fields
generated from the image were not crisp enough to simulate buildings. At
a distance that might not be too problematic, but I am afraid that even
at the middle distance it would be perturbing the view. Still, I think I
should return to the technique and see were it brings me. Thanks for
reminding me of this.
I am now working with prisms on a part of the city now, as a first
approach, and it looks promising. I shall come back with that later
today probably.
A drawback of prisms is that in the end render time will increase. If I
had a way to go from prisms to meshes.... :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
