On 25-2-2013 9:58, Paolo Gibellini wrote:
 > Ok. It _should_ be included in next release!
 > Provided with the comments obviously.
 > Paolo

How about this?

Just developed it today as a variant to my current modelling. Can be 
expanded.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'urbanism2_test.png' (403 KB)

Preview of image 'urbanism2_test.png'

This would be a better controlled random urbanism, with the exception of 
the cut-offs at the block edges.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'urbanism2_test.png' (417 KB)

Preview of image 'urbanism2_test.png'

Without the cut-offs (defining the street boundaries) the house blocks 
look better, but the streets would be much more irregular...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'urbanism2_test.png' (421 KB)

Preview of image 'urbanism2_test.png'

Finally: with some better control on intersecting terrace walls.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'urbanism2_test.png' (413 KB)

Preview of image 'urbanism2_test.png'

>Thomas de Groot  on date 26/02/2013 16.57 wrote:
> On 25-2-2013 9:58, Paolo Gibellini wrote:
>  > Ok. It _should_ be included in next release!
>  > Provided with the comments obviously.
>  > Paolo
>
> How about this?
>
> Just developed it today as a variant to my current modelling. Can be
> expanded.
>
> Thomas
As a city, I like it (perhaps it could be expanded by adding some 
openings to emulate windows and doors).
As a dump of your brain, it is in any case interesting...
;-)
Paolo

Post a reply to this message

On 27-2-2013 16:16, Paolo Gibellini wrote:
> As a city, I like it (perhaps it could be expanded by adding some
> openings to emulate windows and doors).

There is room for expansion of course, and I shall implement this also 
in Gancaloon proper.

> As a dump of your brain, it is in any case interesting...

Indeed. :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Nice, very interesting...

But I see two floating domes not affixed to a roof: one one the left side and
one just right of the middle...

Nevertheless, nice work.

Greetings
Karl

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Finally: with some better control on intersecting terrace walls.

Nice work!  It looks so much like a city center in the Middle East somewhere,
very dense. And has that 'haphazard' look of decades of construction, one
building on top of the other, when building space it at a premium.

If this 'city builder' code is what you have in mind for contributing to
POV-Ray's include files, I vote YES.

Post a reply to this message

On 27-2-2013 21:43, Karl Anders wrote:
> Nice, very interesting...
>
> But I see two floating domes not affixed to a roof: one one the left side and
> one just right of the middle...

Good spotting! That is the result of an incomplete difference. The domes 
are not floating but partially cut off at their base. Easy to correct; 
however, that will result in incomplete domes. The consequence of this 
incremental city building.

>
> Nevertheless, nice work.

Thanks.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 28-2-2013 6:36, Kenneth wrote:
> Nice work!  It looks so much like a city center in the Middle East somewhere,
> very dense. And has that 'haphazard' look of decades of construction, one
> building on top of the other, when building space it at a premium.

Thanks. That was indeed my intention. Quite by chance I saw a photograph 
of Ghadames in Libya in the National Geographic the other day, which 
looked much like this. You can also Google Earth to there to have a look ;-)

>
> If this 'city builder' code is what you have in mind for contributing to
> POV-Ray's include files, I vote YES.

Well, I wrote this code as an answer to Paolo, just for fun really, and 
because I suddenly I got an idea about how to solve a long-standing 
puzzle for me. However, if the POV bosses above us feel inclined to add 
this to the scenes collection, I can prepare a proper file with some 
additional comments. In any case, I shall put a copy of this version in 
p.b.s-f as soon as I have cleaned things a bit up.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 28.02.2013 08:58, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 27-2-2013 21:43, Karl Anders wrote:
>> Nice, very interesting...
>>
>> But I see two floating domes not affixed to a roof: one one the left
>> side and
>> one just right of the middle...
>
> Good spotting! That is the result of an incomplete difference. The domes
> are not floating but partially cut off at their base. Easy to correct;
> however, that will result in incomplete domes. The consequence of this
> incremental city building.

Collect the domes separately, maybe?

Post a reply to this message

On 28-2-2013 9:17, clipka wrote:
> Collect the domes separately, maybe?
>

Yes, I suppose so. Presently the domes are selected during the iteration 
process and thus can be cut off during a later iteration.

I could collect the domes separately by writing their position to file 
during the iteration process, however the same problem would occur if 
the underlying building has been partly differenced in the mean time...

Not sure how to solve that...

I am putting a sample file in p.b.s-f

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 28-2-2013 10:18, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Not sure how to solve that...

I have found an elegant solution by extending the dome with a cylinder 
and writing/reading the dome location and scale data.

A new scene version is to be found in p.b.s-f

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

This shows the latest version.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'urbanism2_test.png' (413 KB)

Preview of image 'urbanism2_test.png'

On 28/02/2013 11:56 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> This shows the latest version.
>
> Thomas

This is neat!

Its got me thinking about road and ground textures.

Based on the location of the buildings, what would be the easiest way to 
texture the ground?  So the ground texture between the buildings have a 
different texture to the ground texture at the base of the buildings?

You have the data for where the buildings are but how do you translate 
that into a ground texture pattern?

Cheers Dre

Post a reply to this message

On 1-3-2013 0:20, Dre wrote:
> This is neat!

:-)

>
> Its got me thinking about road and ground textures.
>
> Based on the location of the buildings, what would be the easiest way to
> texture the ground?  So the ground texture between the buildings have a
> different texture to the ground texture at the base of the buildings?

The quick and dirty solution is: Don't bother about the ground /under/ 
the buildings; it is invisible ;-)  So, just one texture is needed.

That being said however...

>
> You have the data for where the buildings are but how do you translate
> that into a ground texture pattern?

I have no idea presently.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:

> This shows the latest version.
> 
> Thomas

You may want to avoid too small differences between floor heights, as in the 
bottom left corner of the town

-- 
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-03-01 13:10, Jellby a écrit :
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>> This shows the latest version.
>>
>> Thomas
>
> You may want to avoid too small differences between floor heights, as in the
> bottom left corner of the town
>

In real life, you can have cases when you have prety small elevation 
differences between roofs or floors, especialy when they belong to 
different buildings.
I have seen case with a difference of about 0.5 to 5 cm.
In some cases, it's a mather of the ground under one of the buildings 
been slightly less hard or compact. This can appen when the later 
building is built a few years later over a former court yard.
The former building had time to settle down, then, the newer building, 
built flush with the older one, get to settle down. It can also cause 
some serious cracking and bending of the walls and floors...


Alain

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:

>> You have the data for where the buildings are but how do you translate
>> that into a ground texture pattern?
> 
> I have no idea presently.

Depending on how the data looks like

1. If you have some sort of geometric data (corners of the boxes
for the building base or suchlike) you can use it to create somewhat
larger boxes for use in an object pattern.

2. If you have some sort of floor plan as an image_map or similar,
you can use 2d image processing methods to produce an image where
the building locations are expanded by some amount (e.g. using a
minimum/maximum filter, depending on the software you have you can
also simlpy apply some smooothing).

Post a reply to this message

On 1-3-2013 21:59, Alain wrote:
> Le 2013-03-01 13:10, Jellby a écrit :
>> You may want to avoid too small differences between floor heights, as
>> in the
>> bottom left corner of the town
>>
>
> In real life, you can have cases when you have prety small elevation
> differences between roofs or floors, especialy when they belong to
> different buildings.
> I have seen case with a difference of about 0.5 to 5 cm.
> In some cases, it's a mather of the ground under one of the buildings
> been slightly less hard or compact. This can appen when the later
> building is built a few years later over a former court yard.
> The former building had time to settle down, then, the newer building,
> built flush with the older one, get to settle down. It can also cause
> some serious cracking and bending of the walls and floors...

Exactly so.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 2-3-2013 2:50, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>>> You have the data for where the buildings are but how do you translate
>>> that into a ground texture pattern?
>>
>> I have no idea presently.
>
> Depending on how the data looks like
>
> 1. If you have some sort of geometric data (corners of the boxes
> for the building base or suchlike) you can use it to create somewhat
> larger boxes for use in an object pattern.

In this case the buildings are randomly dispersed within a pre-defined 
object. Writing away the geometric data would be possible, without 
knowing what the final union of buildings would look like however.

>
> 2. If you have some sort of floor plan as an image_map or similar,
> you can use 2d image processing methods to produce an image where
> the building locations are expanded by some amount (e.g. using a
> minimum/maximum filter, depending on the software you have you can
> also simlpy apply some smooothing).

The block object defining the contours of the building union can be 
drawn according to an image_map of street patterns on the underlying 
height_field.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Illustrating my answer to MichaelJF in p.b.s-f (Note 2); here using a 
different set of basic building elements (on its way to Gancaloon use).

T

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'urbanism2_test.png' (482 KB)

Preview of image 'urbanism2_test.png'

This is an improved version. Note that a next step would be to clean up 
the inner spaces of the houses ;-)

Improved code in p.b.s-f

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'urbanism2_test.png' (394 KB)

Preview of image 'urbanism2_test.png'

Le 2013-03-03 07:47, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> This is an improved version. Note that a next step would be to clean up
> the inner spaces of the houses ;-)
>
> Improved code in p.b.s-f
>
> Thomas

Now, add the possibility to have non-square buildings and some with 5, 
6, 7 or even more sides. Appen all the time when the neibouring 
buildings are not aligned to some orthographic gird.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

On 03/03/2013 7:25 PM, Alain wrote:
> Now, add the possibility to have non-square buildings and some with 5,
> 6, 7 or even more sides. Appen all the time when the neibouring
> buildings are not aligned to some orthographic gird.

And three sided buildings. Okay maybe, actually four sides but the 
fourth side is very small. This sometime happens when they are built at 
a Y junction.

Or a hypercube.
Only kidding, Thomas. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 3-3-2013 20:25, Alain wrote:
> Now, add the possibility to have non-square buildings and some with 5,
> 6, 7 or even more sides. Appen all the time when the neibouring
> buildings are not aligned to some orthographic gird.

I'll think about it. The buildings themselves are not the problem and 
can be added by anybody presently. However, if the code has to be 
adapted to their use, that would be a major overhaul and one I am not 
yet prepared to do because it would need a different approach. Here, the 
locations are chosen randomly but apart from testing for too much 
overlap, there is no control towards proper shape intersection.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 3-3-2013 22:16, Stephen wrote:
> And three sided buildings. Okay maybe, actually four sides but the
> fourth side is very small. This sometime happens when they are built at
> a Y junction.

I would love to do that but am presently unable to implement something 
like that :-)

>
> Or a hypercube.
> Only kidding, Thomas. ;-)

Now, this I am taking seriously :-) Hypercubes in a spatial arrangement...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:

>> In real life, you can have cases when you have prety small elevation
>> differences between roofs or floors, especialy when they belong to
>> different buildings.

but I think its rare within a building to have something like 0.5m
height difference between floor corners, leading to all the non-level
baselines. If its a steep slope it may get an additional floor (2-3m?)
but otherwise I'd expect the floor to be roughly levelled. So the
architecture shapes the ground to some extent.

Post a reply to this message

On 4-3-2013 12:38, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> but I think its rare within a building to have something like 0.5m
> height difference between floor corners, leading to all the non-level
> baselines. If its a steep slope it may get an additional floor (2-3m?)
> but otherwise I'd expect the floor to be roughly levelled. So the
> architecture shapes the ground to some extent.
>

You'd be surprised... ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Le 04/03/2013 09:08, Thomas de Groot nous fit lire :
>>
>> Or a hypercube.
>> Only kidding, Thomas. ;-)
> 
> Now, this I am taking seriously :-) Hypercubes in a spatial arrangement...

It would allow to make a lot of money selling the same house more than
one time, with doors on different side opening to each 3D cube of the
hypercube.
I wonder about the associated taxes: based on external 2D projection on
ground, or actual volumes ?

Post a reply to this message

On 4-3-2013 22:51, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> It would allow to make a lot of money selling the same house more than
> one time, with doors on different side opening to each 3D cube of the
> hypercube.
> I wonder about the associated taxes: based on external 2D projection on
> ground, or actual volumes ?
>
On volumes, I guess. And think about all the room space that becomes 
available: cities could be built much smaller ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 05.03.2013 08:51, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 4-3-2013 22:51, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> It would allow to make a lot of money selling the same house more than
>> one time, with doors on different side opening to each 3D cube of the
>> hypercube.
>> I wonder about the associated taxes: based on external 2D projection on
>> ground, or actual volumes ?
>>
> On volumes, I guess. And think about all the room space that becomes
> available: cities could be built much smaller ;-)

So, would that be called Complex Estate then, or Surreal Estate?

Post a reply to this message

On 5-3-2013 11:18, clipka wrote:
> So, would that be called Complex Estate then, or Surreal Estate?
>

I would go for Hyper Estate ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-03-04 07:08, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> On 4-3-2013 12:38, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
>> but I think its rare within a building to have something like 0.5m
>> height difference between floor corners, leading to all the non-level
>> baselines. If its a steep slope it may get an additional floor (2-3m?)
>> but otherwise I'd expect the floor to be roughly levelled. So the
>> architecture shapes the ground to some extent.
>>
>
> You'd be surprised... ;-)
>
> Thomas

I'm not surprised by such things.

Things like one, two or tree steps inside a house are not uncommon, and 
some times intentional. I've also seen floors showing rather steep 
slopes, with very notable curves, and even un-planed waves about 60cm 
deep by 3~4m long (in a school built in the 60's)...
I've visited a house that was leaning side way by about 10°, owned by 
someone in my family who lived there for about 90 years. The ground 
settled unevenly.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

On 5-3-2013 21:41, Alain wrote:
> I'm not surprised by such things.
>
> Things like one, two or tree steps inside a house are not uncommon, and
> some times intentional. I've also seen floors showing rather steep
> slopes, with very notable curves, and even un-planed waves about 60cm
> deep by 3~4m long (in a school built in the 60's)...
> I've visited a house that was leaning side way by about 10°, owned by
> someone in my family who lived there for about 90 years. The ground
> settled unevenly.

Absolutely.

I have had an uncle living in a house which core dated back to the 
Middle Ages. There were lots of nooks and crannies, little steps up or 
down from one room or corridor to another, doors and ceilings of 
different heights, etc.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas,
Great concept.
And the next dillemma: Addept the buildings to the terrain or vice versa. The
latter one sometimes called as  "site preparation"

Post a reply to this message

On 7-3-2013 21:50, BertvdB wrote:
> Thomas,
> Great concept.
> And the next dillemma: Addept the buildings to the terrain or vice versa. The
> latter one sometimes called as  "site preparation"
>
>

Thanks. The former is already done by the code of course through the 
trace function, the latter would not be too difficult by using the Block 
object - which limits the urbanism - in a difference with the 
height_field. In that case, the Block object could also be made more 
interesting, with terraces for instance.

Good idea. :-)


Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 7-3-2013 21:50, BertvdB wrote:
> > Thomas,
> > Great concept.
> > And the next dillemma: Addept the buildings to the terrain or vice versa. The
> > latter one sometimes called as  "site preparation"
> >
> >
>
> Thanks. The former is already done by the code of course through the
> trace function, the latter would not be too difficult by using the Block
> object - which limits the urbanism - in a difference with the
> height_field. In that case, the Block object could also be made more
> interesting, with terraces for instance.
>
> Good idea. :-)
>
>
> Thomas
I think with a difference you get black holes in your terrain, there must be a
more elegant solution.

Post a reply to this message

On 8-3-2013 22:03, BertvdB wrote:
> I think with a difference you get black holes in your terrain, there must be a
> more elegant solution.

Not in my experience. In the attached image the height_field has been 
differenced and shows the surrounding texture.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'gancaloon.png' (858 KB)

Preview of image 'gancaloon.png'

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 8-3-2013 22:03, BertvdB wrote:
> > I think with a difference you get black holes in your terrain, there must be a
> > more elegant solution.
>
> Not in my experience. In the attached image the height_field has been
> differenced and shows the surrounding texture.
>
> Thomas
You're wright, I tried it with a isosurface and then you'll get the black holes.
Bert

Post a reply to this message

On 10-3-2013 10:16, BertvdB wrote:
> You're wright, I tried it with a isosurface and then you'll get the black holes.

That might be a different kind of fish indeed. Been a long time since I 
last used isosurfaces so my question might be irrelevant; are black 
holes also occurring with iso-CSG objects/height_fields, developed by 
Christoph Hormann and ABX? I think that might be your answer. Look at:

http://www.imagico.de/pov/ic/index.php

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Hi(gh)!

On 05.03.2013 21:41, Alain wrote:

> Things like one, two or tree steps inside a house are not uncommon, and
> some times intentional. I've also seen floors showing rather steep
> slopes, with very notable curves, and even un-planed waves about 60cm
> deep by 3~4m long (in a school built in the 60's)...
> I've visited a house that was leaning side way by about 10°, owned by
> someone in my family who lived there for about 90 years. The ground
> settled unevenly.

As you are a Canadian, I suppose you have seen these examples in the 
permafrost regions of Canada (Mackenzie, Nunavut etc.) - I have heard 
similar stories from Siberia! When the uppermost few metres of 
otherwisely permanently frozen soil thaw during summer and turn into 
soft mud, many buildings (except those built on concrete pillars 
reaching into the perennial permafrost) "float" in that mud and 
gradually distort by their own weight...

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

Post a reply to this message

Le 13-03-13 17:11, Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann a écrit :
> Hi(gh)!
>
> On 05.03.2013 21:41, Alain wrote:
>
>> Things like one, two or tree steps inside a house are not uncommon, and
>> some times intentional. I've also seen floors showing rather steep
>> slopes, with very notable curves, and even un-planed waves about 60cm
>> deep by 3~4m long (in a school built in the 60's)...
>> I've visited a house that was leaning side way by about 10°, owned by
>> someone in my family who lived there for about 90 years. The ground
>> settled unevenly.
>
> As you are a Canadian, I suppose you have seen these examples in the
> permafrost regions of Canada (Mackenzie, Nunavut etc.) - I have heard
> similar stories from Siberia! When the uppermost few metres of
> otherwisely permanently frozen soil thaw during summer and turn into
> soft mud, many buildings (except those built on concrete pillars
> reaching into the perennial permafrost) "float" in that mud and
> gradually distort by their own weight...
>
> See you in Khyberspace!
>
> Yadgar

I don't live that far north, by far. In Montréal, there is no permafrost 
at all.
In that school case, it looks like someone confounded feet for meters 
for the spacing of the support beams under a wooden floor in an 
otherwise concreete construction.... They just "forgot" the halways for 
the second and third floors classes and needed to patch something fast a 
few day before the inauguration.

Nevertheless, I've seen some bits of the building code for area having 
permafrost.
It include insulated floor, more that the walls..., broad air pipes 
oriented to the dominant wind passing under the building, stilt building 
raising the whole building over 1m over the ground or deep fundations 
going to the rock bed.



Alain

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 10-3-2013 10:16, BertvdB wrote:
> > You're wright, I tried it with a isosurface and then you'll get the black holes.
>
> That might be a different kind of fish indeed. Been a long time since I
> last used isosurfaces so my question might be irrelevant; are black
> holes also occurring with iso-CSG objects/height_fields, developed by
> Christoph Hormann and ABX? I think that might be your answer. Look at:
>
> http://www.imagico.de/pov/ic/index.php
>
> Thomas
The shapes from Christph are "functions" that are differenced to a new function
and this will build the isosurface. So it is not exactly a difference between a
object and a isosurface.
Bert

Post a reply to this message