On 4-10-2013 13:22, Stephen wrote:

> It is not missing, it is not there. McAvoy is an Irish name and the Irish don't
> really use tartans (unless it is to sell, "a little bit o' Ireland", to
> Americans. ;-) )

Funny fact: In the little village I live in, in the middle of nowhere of 
northern NL, I last saw a man walking his dog, dressed in kilt (the man, 
not the dog)...  :-)


Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:

> 4) 800k raindrops and slight down-scaling. The problem with down-scaling 
> is that the drops become invisible, so increasing the number of drops 
> does not change the final view much. 

I think this issue is similar to rendering star fields. As with
stars, individual raindrops that are far away (> 10m(*) or so assuming
a raindrop is 3mm in diameter) may still be visible to the unaided eye
but as unresolved points (or unresolved lines for falling drops).

In POV if they become smaller than a pixel you can entirely miss
them unless strong non-adaptive aliasing is enforced. But you can fake
it by compensating the size of the object to keep its angular size
at the 1 pixel level (but this then depends on render resolution).

Also if you do increase the size but use the same texture or
interior you will exaggerate the effect, so you should try to
compensate e.g. by reducing reflection / filter / absorption
values or similar by scale factor.

At some point even the distance between two falling drops
will be smaller than the resolution of the eye (> 300m(*) assuming
raindrops lines are spaced 10 cm apart). Then the effect will be
indistinguishable from continuous fog / media.

(*) Assuming 1 arcmin resolution. In practise this will likely not
be reached for fuzzy moving raindrops so you probably don't need to
render individual raindrops at extreme distances.

Post a reply to this message

On 4-10-2013 15:13, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
>
> Also if you do increase the size but use the same texture or
> interior you will exaggerate the effect, so you should try to
> compensate e.g. by reducing reflection / filter / absorption
> values or similar by scale factor.

The texture is fairly simple so that will not be a big problem I guess. 
However, experiment will tell.

>
> At some point even the distance between two falling drops
> will be smaller than the resolution of the eye (> 300m(*) assuming
> raindrops lines are spaced 10 cm apart). Then the effect will be
> indistinguishable from continuous fog / media.
>
> (*) Assuming 1 arcmin resolution. In practise this will likely not
> be reached for fuzzy moving raindrops so you probably don't need to
> render individual raindrops at extreme distances.

Drops are only generated in a box in front of the camera. In the present 
image it does not extend beyond the bridge approximately.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Some changes:
>
> 1) To the rain macro: replacing the *rand() of the rain angle by
> +RRand() with a total variation of 2 degrees max.
>
> 2) To the rain macro: adding a file-saving utility for rain drop
> parameters. The reading of such a file is much faster than complete
> processing each time.
>
> 3) To the rain macro: replaced the csg raindrop cylinder by a mesh2
> tapering cylinder.
>
> 4) 800k raindrops and slight down-scaling. The problem with down-scaling
> is that the drops become invisible, so increasing the number of drops
> does not change the final view much. A possible solution could be to
> slightly increase the size of the drops with distance from the camera
> but that might become weird. I shall investigate.
>
> 5) To the (ground) mist faking visibility loss has been added turbulence.
>
> 6) Specular and reflection added to the rock surfaces and road. /Not/ to
> the grass btw.
>
> Thomas

Getting better! If I look at the rooftop at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain

I get the impression, that it may suffice to have a less dense rain in the
foreground and a curtain of heavier, dense rain somewhere over your stream. Any
rain behind this curtain cannot be seen (first the curtain would hide enough of
the background and second due to Christian's argumentation) and you can spare
the effort of scaling with distance. (Also an interesting figure about the shape
and size of rain drops there ;)

Best regards,
Michael

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Some changes:
>

Definitely getting better, the contrast is better with this image as well as the
improved rain effect.

Sean

Post a reply to this message

On 3-10-2013 12:30, Stephen wrote:
> It reminds me of home.
> Drookit in Gancaloon ;-)

And it is a dreich stretch of road. ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 05/10/2013 8:19 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 3-10-2013 12:30, Stephen wrote:
>> It reminds me of home.
>> Drookit in Gancaloon ;-)
>
> And it is a dreich stretch of road. ;-)
>

It is slower but better than taking the low road. ;-)


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 5-10-2013 12:54, Stephen wrote:
> On 05/10/2013 8:19 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 3-10-2013 12:30, Stephen wrote:
>>> It reminds me of home.
>>> Drookit in Gancaloon ;-)
>>
>> And it is a dreich stretch of road. ;-)
>>
>
> It is slower but better than taking the low road. ;-)
>
>
That is absolutely true.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote:
> "MichaelJF" <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> > BTW2: The entry for McAvoy is missing at
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tartans
> >
>
> It is not missing, it is not there. McAvoy is an Irish name and the Irish don't
> really use tartans (unless it is to sell, "a little bit o' Ireland", to
> Americans. ;-) )
>
>
> > but can be found at:
> >
> > http://www.tartanregister.gov.uk/
>
> That is personal tartan. Anyone can register a design.
> Again it is a way to sell "a wee bit o' Scotland" to whoever wants to prove his
> connections. Big business now compared to when it started. Walter Scott (the
> author) started a trend in England and Europe. Where Scotland was considered
> "Romantic". Queen Victoria built a castle there and everyone who was anyone had
> to have a link. So the clever burgers of Edinburgh, created a business model.
>
> The family or clan tartans, would be worn by whoever liked the colours,
> especially if you were rich and had a kilt for every day of the week.
>
> But don't tell anyone I told you. :-)

I've been wondering whether I have a family tartan.  I've been told all my life
that my surname is Scottish, but recently my sister told me that it is actually
Welsh.  (How can I not know?  Because my surname doesn't reflect my ancestry,
which is (mostly) African.)  My surname doesn't show up at either Web site.

Post a reply to this message

On 06/10/2013 12:27 AM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> I've been wondering whether I have a family tartan.  I've been told all my life
> that my surname is Scottish, but recently my sister told me that it is actually
> Welsh.  (How can I not know?  Because my surname doesn't reflect my ancestry,
> which is (mostly) African.)  My surname doesn't show up at either Web site.

I suppose it depends on how your family got their surname.
IIRC you are from the West Indies, I can't remember if it is Barbados or 
the Bahamas. It might have been taken from the white slave master as a 
generic one or from an individual. The latter would give you blood ties, 
of course.
As for Welsh or Scottish, it might be obvious to a Brit.
Jones, Welsh, Robertson probably Scots etc.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message