Been some time since my last image from Gancaloon. Steady changes and 
steady progress since then. Main development being the replacement of 
the city blocks by 'real' geometry. Progress still under way and only as 
first version without doors and windows. Potentially however, I have now 
the possibility to make any street scene I want, wherever in the city. 
Further, I make extensively use of Edouard Poor's proximity pattern 
macro which is the one I prefer at this moment. Sam Benge's comes as 
close second ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'gancaloon_river harbour3_05.jpg' (284 KB)

Preview of image 'gancaloon_river harbour3_05.jpg'

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Been some time since my last image from Gancaloon. Steady changes and
> steady progress since then. Main development being the replacement of
> the city blocks by 'real' geometry. Progress still under way and only as
> first version without doors and windows. Potentially however, I have now
> the possibility to make any street scene I want, wherever in the city.
> Further, I make extensively use of Edouard Poor's proximity pattern
> macro which is the one I prefer at this moment. Sam Benge's comes as
> close second ;-)
>
> Thomas

Hi Thomas,

a nice view of Gancaloon again. Two nitpicks: You should consider the use of the
occulsion map baking for the statue and a higher camera position to see the
water between the paths.

Best regards,
Michael

Post a reply to this message

On 19/02/2013 12:23 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Been some time since my last image from Gancaloon.

You should have a website for this series. (As if you need any more 
demands on your time.) :-)

I don't agree with Michael about a higher camera position. Then you 
would not get the handrail view. And I think that you have spent a lot 
of time, refurbishing that boat. :-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:

great view from the ship!

The two right-most figures appear a bit "headless" to me ;)
Likely an effect of dark head against dark background.

Also I wonder if the water lanes should be wider? From economy
of building I'd expect they should fit two ships side by side.

> Further, I make extensively use of Edouard Poor's proximity pattern 
> macro which is the one I prefer at this moment. Sam Benge's comes as 
> close second ;-)

And you are probably very fond of the effects you can create
with this, but don't overdo it. I would hope a prestigous statue
in a shiny harbour could be a little better maintained ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 19-2-2013 20:27, MichaelJF wrote:
> a nice view of Gancaloon again.
Thanks :-)

Two nitpicks: You should consider the use of the
> occulsion map baking for the statue and a higher camera position to see the
> water between the paths.

I agree that the statue's texture is a bit extreme. I still need to come 
up with a better overall texture and, in particular, make better use of 
the proximity pattern. Baking the occlusion map is a next option indeed.

About the camera position, I shall see. I don't want to loose the 
contact with the ship ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 19-2-2013 21:57, Stephen wrote:
> You should have a website for this series. (As if you need any more
> demands on your time.) :-)

Indeed for both points ;-) I have no plans in that direction however.

>
> I don't agree with Michael about a higher camera position. Then you
> would not get the handrail view.

Yes, that might be the problem indeed. However, I shall consider the 
possibilities.

> And I think that you have spent a lot
> of time, refurbishing that boat. :-)
>

You don't want to know /how much/ time that is, and still not finished. 
About nothing is left of the original geometry/textures and many have 
been added.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 19-2-2013 22:01, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> great view from the ship!

Thanks!

>
> The two right-most figures appear a bit "headless" to me ;)
> Likely an effect of dark head against dark background.

Ah yes! Just a matter of contrast indeed.

>
> Also I wonder if the water lanes should be wider? From economy
> of building I'd expect they should fit two ships side by side.

Believe it or not, there is ample room for two ships side by side in 
most if not all of the docks! Perspective is playing a bad trick here.

>
>> Further, I make extensively use of Edouard Poor's proximity pattern
>> macro which is the one I prefer at this moment. Sam Benge's comes as
>> close second ;-)
>
> And you are probably very fond of the effects you can create
> with this, but don't overdo it. I would hope a prestigous statue
> in a shiny harbour could be a little better maintained ;)

Oh well.... the intention is indeed bad maintenance and age. I agree 
with you however and shall work a bit more towards a more believable 
aspect ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2013 9:35, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Believe it or not, there is ample room for two ships side by side in
> most if not all of the docks! Perspective is playing a bad trick here.
>

So I am proved a liar ;-)

Somehow I have not paid attention to some proportions and sizes and 
shall have to reconsider.

I remember that my original intention was to have docks for all kind of 
vessels, large but also small. This might need proper attention...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'gancaloon.png' (557 KB)

Preview of image 'gancaloon.png'

> On 19-2-2013 22:01, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> Also I wonder if the water lanes should be wider? From economy
>> of building I'd expect they should fit two ships side by side.
>

Not too bad. The most narrow docks are 5m wide. Considering that on the 
river there are a score of small vessels, from the pirogue-scale 
upwards, those would be reserved for them.

No real need for rebuilding ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 20.02.2013 13:33, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 19-2-2013 22:01, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
>> Also I wonder if the water lanes should be wider? From economy
>>> of building I'd expect they should fit two ships side by side.
>
> Not too bad. The most narrow docks are 5m wide. Considering that on the
> river there are a score of small vessels, from the pirogue-scale
> upwards, those would be reserved for them.

5m wide = max. 1.5m width per ship.

I doubt that such small ships would be moored directly sideways to a 
solid stone quay. After all, what heavy or bulky load could they 
possibly carry? And how would they get out of the ships at low tide?

More likely you'd have narrow wooden walkways for such small vessels, 
floating on pontoons; and you'd moor multiple vessels side by side to those.

Post a reply to this message

Nice scene.

Remember, in ancient times they had these huge wheel cranes on some locations at
the harbor. Inside the wheel were humans, and the movement of that huge wheel
was used to move the crane's top, or to lift and lower the fright from the
crane's top. Those cranes could rotate, too. And most harbors had also some
large fires burning at the entrance towers, to make it possible for the ships to
find it by night.

There were three books published in the USA, showing some of my works in the
field of maritime archaeology. The author is Stephen M. Miller.

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2013 18:25, clipka wrote:
> 5m wide = max. 1.5m width per ship.

Yeah... it is a bit of a squeeze, I admit. But for the pirogue-class 
that's all right ;-)

Seriously, I may have to reconsider the layout. Sloppy architect.

>
> I doubt that such small ships would be moored directly sideways to a
> solid stone quay. After all, what heavy or bulky load could they
> possibly carry? And how would they get out of the ships at low tide?

Not much tide in the Mediterranean. Small ships, even pirogues crowd in 
to the daily markets with fish and fruit, I imagine.

There probably is some kind of buffer (hides) either on the quay or the 
ships to protect from the stone. Also need something to moor to.

>
> More likely you'd have narrow wooden walkways for such small vessels,
> floating on pontoons; and you'd moor multiple vessels side by side to
> those.

Yep. And as this is visibly going to be a multi-purpose harbour, all 
kind of possibilities need to be kept open indeed.

Note: While using historical elements, these scenes are not intended as 
scientifically accurate views. We stay in the realm of the imagination ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Wow!  Both of your images show the tremendous amount of detailed work you've put
into this scene.

The view from on-board the boat is a keeper; I do like the image's composition,
with the railing in the foreground.

I would suggest some 'dirtying down' of some of the stone surfaces: on the main
court, and on the vertical walls near the water (those would probably have years
of green grime dripping down, from the moisture.) Does the court get much human
or animal traffic? Or is it supposed to be 'clean and austere' and off-limits to
the populace, like China's Forbidden City used to be?

Post a reply to this message

On 21-2-2013 1:28, Sven Littkowski wrote:
> Nice scene.

Thanks.

>
> Remember, in ancient times they had these huge wheel cranes on some locations at
> the harbor. Inside the wheel were humans, and the movement of that huge wheel
> was used to move the crane's top, or to lift and lower the fright from the
> crane's top. Those cranes could rotate, too. And most harbors had also some
> large fires burning at the entrance towers, to make it possible for the ships to
> find it by night.

The cranes are an option indeed, but they will probably not be present 
in this harbour (possibly in the one on the sea side, which will be the 
military harbour as far as I know presently).

>
> There were three books published in the USA, showing some of my works in the
> field of maritime archaeology. The author is Stephen M. Miller.
>

Hmm...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 21-2-2013 9:24, Kenneth wrote:
> Wow!  Both of your images show the tremendous amount of detailed work you've put
> into this scene.

Thanks! And still only in wip mode ;-)

>
> The view from on-board the boat is a keeper; I do like the image's composition,
> with the railing in the foreground.
>
> I would suggest some 'dirtying down' of some of the stone surfaces: on the main
> court, and on the vertical walls near the water (those would probably have years
> of green grime dripping down, from the moisture.)

Well, there already is some but that could certainly be made more 
obvious. I have to consider, if I can find time of course ;-)

However, being in a Mediterranean/North African climate means less slime 
  (except at water's edge) than what we are used to up North.

Does the court get much human
> or animal traffic? Or is it supposed to be 'clean and austere' and off-limits to
> the populace, like China's Forbidden City used to be?

Oh no, everything is open and free and often used for other purposes 
than those for which they were created in the first place. The court is 
a market during early day hours when the temperature is not too high and 
often also at night (different purposes...).

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 20-2-2013 9:35, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> > Believe it or not, there is ample room for two ships side by side in
> > most if not all of the docks! Perspective is playing a bad trick here.
> >
>
> So I am proved a liar ;-)
>
> Somehow I have not paid attention to some proportions and sizes and
> shall have to reconsider.
>
> I remember that my original intention was to have docks for all kind of
> vessels, large but also small. This might need proper attention...
>
> Thomas

hey, that sea demands a bit more ripples :)

Post a reply to this message

On 25-2-2013 5:34, nemesis wrote:
>
> hey, that sea demands a bit more ripples :)
>

Oh dear! Was I expecting that ?  ;-)

Waves are not really the problem, when time comes to implement them, but 
what I find difficult is the way they will behave on the coastline 
(except for a foam line like in the Terra project of Jaime) and when 
coming into the estuary, how they will be damped. This is truly beyond 
my capacities at present...

I am concentrating on the town (and its population if time permits). The 
rest of the world is there to give an idea of what it will/ should look 
like.

But you are right. Sooner or later I shall have to confront this problem.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.02.2013 09:20, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 25-2-2013 5:34, nemesis wrote:
>>
>> hey, that sea demands a bit more ripples :)
>>
>
> Oh dear! Was I expecting that ?  ;-)
>
> Waves are not really the problem, when time comes to implement them, but
> what I find difficult is the way they will behave on the coastline
> (except for a foam line like in the Terra project of Jaime) and when
> coming into the estuary, how they will be damped. This is truly beyond
> my capacities at present...

Why not use a wave tank simulator? POV-Ray can do that :-)

news://news.povray.org:119/4a812162@news.povray.org

I think I still have the SDL code somewhere on my computer.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 25.02.2013 09:20, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> > On 25-2-2013 5:34, nemesis wrote:
> >>
> >> hey, that sea demands a bit more ripples :)
> >>
> >
> > Oh dear! Was I expecting that ?  ;-)
> >
> > Waves are not really the problem, when time comes to implement them, but
> > what I find difficult is the way they will behave on the coastline
> > (except for a foam line like in the Terra project of Jaime) and when
> > coming into the estuary, how they will be damped. This is truly beyond
> > my capacities at present...
>
> Why not use a wave tank simulator? POV-Ray can do that :-)
>
> news://news.povray.org:119/4a812162@news.povray.org
>
> I think I still have the SDL code somewhere on my computer.

woa, I was just talking about some more pronounced normals :)

Post a reply to this message

On 25-2-2013 10:24, clipka wrote:
> Why not use a wave tank simulator? POV-Ray can do that :-)
>
> news://news.povray.org:119/4a812162@news.povray.org
>
> I think I still have the SDL code somewhere on my computer.
>

Yes, but... the code in that thread is your Game of Life? Not really 
waves meseems... ;-)

Is there wave tank simulator code somewhere?

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.02.2013 13:44, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 25-2-2013 10:24, clipka wrote:
>> Why not use a wave tank simulator? POV-Ray can do that :-)
>>
>> news://news.povray.org:119/4a812162@news.povray.org
>>
>> I think I still have the SDL code somewhere on my computer.
>>
>
> Yes, but... the code in that thread is your Game of Life? Not really
> waves meseems... ;-)
>
> Is there wave tank simulator code somewhere?

Posted to p.b.scene-files.

Have Fun!

Post a reply to this message

On 26-2-2013 4:41, clipka wrote:
> Am 25.02.2013 13:44, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> Is there wave tank simulator code somewhere?
>
> Posted to p.b.scene-files.
>
> Have Fun!
>

Thanks! Visibly the same flavour as Game of Life ;-)

However... except for a series of white images with some "obstacles" I 
see no wave pattern forming.

Changed version to 3.7 and ambient to emission but that is obviously not 
the problem.

any ideas?

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.02.2013 09:31, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 26-2-2013 4:41, clipka wrote:
>> Am 25.02.2013 13:44, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>> Is there wave tank simulator code somewhere?
>>
>> Posted to p.b.scene-files.
>>
>> Have Fun!
>>
>
> Thanks! Visibly the same flavour as Game of Life ;-)
>
> However... except for a series of white images with some "obstacles" I
> see no wave pattern forming.
>
> Changed version to 3.7 and ambient to emission but that is obviously not
> the problem.
>
> any ideas?

Um... no, not really. It's been years since I touched that code. Maybe 
check the all the gamma tweakables?

Post a reply to this message

On 26-2-2013 9:53, clipka wrote:
> Um... no, not really. It's been years since I touched that code. Maybe
> check the all the gamma tweakables?
>

Well, assumed_gamma 1.0 of course, everything else equal to all my other 
scenes.

Attached is a ninth iteration as an example. In the series the images 
get brighter and brighter.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'wavetank9.exr.dat' (4 KB)

Am 26.02.2013 14:22, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 26-2-2013 9:53, clipka wrote:
>> Um... no, not really. It's been years since I touched that code. Maybe
>> check the all the gamma tweakables?
>>
>
> Well, assumed_gamma 1.0 of course, everything else equal to all my other
> scenes.
>
> Attached is a ninth iteration as an example. In the series the images
> get brighter and brighter.

You might need to set "gamma 1.0" on the .png input file.

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 26-2-2013 9:53, clipka wrote:
> > Um... no, not really. It's been years since I touched that code. Maybe
> > check the all the gamma tweakables?
> >
>
> Well, assumed_gamma 1.0 of course, everything else equal to all my other
> scenes.
>
> Attached is a ninth iteration as an example. In the series the images
> get brighter and brighter.
>


If you want to go that way, Tim Nikias’s Liquid-Surface-Simulation-Macros
http://www.nolights.de/downloads.html#lssm
Work quite well.
But you have IIRC a big sea. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 26-2-2013 14:39, clipka wrote:
> You might need to set "gamma 1.0" on the .png input file.

I forgot that one indeed, but no change.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 26-2-2013 15:11, Stephen wrote:

> If you want to go that way, Tim Nikias’s Liquid-Surface-Simulation-Macros
> http://www.nolights.de/downloads.html#lssm
> Work quite well.
> But you have IIRC a big sea. ;-)

For the time being, it is curiosity (which kills the cat of course)  ;-)

But yes, I probably shall have look into that too.

My sea is very large indeed: a sphere of 10e5 radius.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-02-26 09:11, Stephen a écrit :
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> On 26-2-2013 9:53, clipka wrote:
>>> Um... no, not really. It's been years since I touched that code. Maybe
>>> check the all the gamma tweakables?
>>>
>>
>> Well, assumed_gamma 1.0 of course, everything else equal to all my other
>> scenes.
>>
>> Attached is a ninth iteration as an example. In the series the images
>> get brighter and brighter.
>>
>
>
> If you want to go that way, Tim Nikias’s Liquid-Surface-Simulation-Macros
> http://www.nolights.de/downloads.html#lssm
> Work quite well.
> But you have IIRC a big sea. ;-)
>
>
That's a simulation for standing water over a mostly flat bottom.

In the Gancaloon scene, you have a river going into the sea. That mean 
some current. Then, there is the problem of that flowing water 
encountering the mostly static sea water. Add a realy uneven bottom with 
possibly some abrupt depth changes.
The simulator may work well, but the current model is likely to cause it 
to fail.



Alain

Post a reply to this message

On 26-2-2013 21:41, Alain wrote:
> That's a simulation for standing water over a mostly flat bottom.
>
> In the Gancaloon scene, you have a river going into the sea. That mean
> some current. Then, there is the problem of that flowing water
> encountering the mostly static sea water. Add a realy uneven bottom with
> possibly some abrupt depth changes.
> The simulator may work well, but the current model is likely to cause it
> to fail.

Reasons why I left this for (much) later.  ;-)

Except for the island offshore, the sea and river bottoms are flat, but 
the meeting of the two water bodies is challenging. At least I solved 
the water colour mixing of the two (with some help of the community) a 
couple of years ago.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message