 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> And a new version.
>
> Thomas
It's looking good, Thomas. The foreground is nicely detailed. Are you using or
planning to use backside illumination for the grass/small plants? The distant
cliffsides could use some surface normals, perhaps aligned with the strata.
Other than that, everything's shaping up nicely :)
So how many days are really left until we can no longer upload our entries? The
TC-RTC site seems to give different deadlines. If it's really only 13 days, I'm
screwed :S
Since springtime has come I've been hiking the hills. I just discovered that our
area produces opalescent quartz, some of it flawless (but very small). So I've
been searching for a good source, but the geology of our area has spread the
bedrock around quite a bit before actually pushing the stuff up to the surface.
The logging trails also confuse the matter.
Other than that, I've been distracted by the new version of Blender, and have
been learning as much of it as I can. Which, of course, means I haven't taken
the time to work on my challenge entries! So I really hope we have more than 13
days left :)
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/06/2013 8:20 PM, Samuel Benge wrote:
> So I really hope we have more than 13 days left:)
Worry not, Sam. The site has not been modified yet so we are running two
back to back Challenges as one. You have 15 days plus two months left.
That is 75 days until the deadline.
It also means that people who have uploaded images for this "official"
Challenge will need to upload them again. o_O
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 03/06/2013 8:20 PM, Samuel Benge wrote:
> > So I really hope we have more than 13 days left:)
>
> Worry not, Sam. The site has not been modified yet so we are running two
> back to back Challenges as one. You have 15 days plus two months left.
> That is 75 days until the deadline.
Ah, thank goodness :)
> It also means that people who have uploaded images for this "official"
> Challenge will need to upload them again. o_O
In that case, I'm definitely glad I haven't uploaded anything yet.
I haven't been able to pull up the TINA CHeP forums in two days, or post
anything for several. (I'm not intentionally ignoring my fellow 'cheppers!)
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-6-2013 20:01, Doctor John wrote:
>> ....and the original photograph ;-D
>>
That is very credible indeed. You found me out ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-6-2013 21:20, Samuel Benge wrote:
> It's looking good, Thomas. The foreground is nicely detailed. Are you using or
> planning to use backside illumination for the grass/small plants? The distant
> cliffsides could use some surface normals, perhaps aligned with the strata.
> Other than that, everything's shaping up nicely :)
Thanks Sam. Backside illumination is something I have to look into
indeed. Good suggestion. The cliff normals is also something on the todo
list; there is a general normal there but some detailed alignment is
certainly in order.
> Since springtime has come I've been hiking the hills. I just discovered that our
> area produces opalescent quartz, some of it flawless (but very small). So I've
> been searching for a good source, but the geology of our area has spread the
> bedrock around quite a bit before actually pushing the stuff up to the surface.
> The logging trails also confuse the matter.
Interesting. Sources may be difficult to find as the geology in your
area is rather complex. Stream beds may not be a bad place to look I
guess, not like gold placers of course, but in areas were some pebble
size sorting has been active.
>
> Other than that, I've been distracted by the new version of Blender, and have
> been learning as much of it as I can. Which, of course, means I haven't taken
> the time to work on my challenge entries! So I really hope we have more than 13
> days left :)
Still on my todo...
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-6-2013 22:13, Stephen wrote:
> It also means that people who have uploaded images for this "official"
> Challenge will need to upload them again. o_O
>
I was afraid that would be necessary.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-6-2013 22:55, Samuel Benge wrote:
> I haven't been able to pull up the TINA CHeP forums in two days, or post
> anything for several. (I'm not intentionally ignoring my fellow 'cheppers!)
I don't know what is happening, but I have been unable to get at the
TC-RTC forums for quite some time now, and the main site of the forum is
also unresponsive, so I am unable to investigate the matter. From some
error messages I have got, I wonder if they have not a serious hacker
and/or spam problem.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 3-6-2013 21:20, Samuel Benge wrote:
> > Since springtime has come I've been hiking the hills. I just discovered that our
> > area produces opalescent quartz, some of it flawless (but very small). So I've
> > been searching for a good source, but the geology of our area has spread the
> > bedrock around quite a bit before actually pushing the stuff up to the surface.
> > The logging trails also confuse the matter.
>
> Interesting. Sources may be difficult to find as the geology in your
> area is rather complex. Stream beds may not be a bad place to look I
> guess, not like gold placers of course, but in areas were some pebble
> size sorting has been active.
Fortunately there is a creek below the area in question; unfortunately the creek
receives poor sunlight in the afternoons, and is possessed with killer
mosquitoes. Which of course won't be stopping me >:) I need to take a screen box
and gold pan down there and go collecting. Even though panning for quartz is
pretty much pointless, there might be other minerals of higher mass which can be
separated in that manner. The presence of granite pegmatite, gneiss, and mica
schist gives me hope :)
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> And a new version.
>
> Thomas
This is looking really good now, I especially like the addition of the trees in
the foreground, what did you use to create them?
Sean
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-6-2013 1:41, s.day wrote:
>
> This is looking really good now, I especially like the addition of the trees in
> the foreground, what did you use to create them?
>
Yes, the trees are the key elements. These are Xfrog objects, for free:
http://graphics.uni-konstanz.de/plantslib/
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
