On 1/24/2016 7:17 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> Here's the latest render from inside the ship. Way too much glare! I
> will explore ways to reduce the glare but I'm not sure what will be
> effective.
>
>
> Mike


I forgot to add that this image took about a week to render. I just 
turned on interior media and radiosity and it is rendering at 13ppm (and 
will probably drop lower at certain spots). So I estimate it will take 
between 1 and 2 months nonstop to fully render.

:(

AMD A8-5600K Trinity Quad-Core 3.6GHz

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.01.2016 um 09:34 schrieb Mike Horvath:

> I forgot to add that this image took about a week to render.

You might want to examine whether you're doing something wrong.

While high quality settings are an obvious factor in long renders,
another infamous but often underestimated performance hog is complex
non-union CSG.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/26/2016 3:49 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 26.01.2016 um 09:34 schrieb Mike Horvath:
>
>> I forgot to add that this image took about a week to render.
>
> You might want to examine whether you're doing something wrong.
>
> While high quality settings are an obvious factor in long renders,
> another infamous but often underestimated performance hog is complex
> non-union CSG.
>

I added a lot of bounded_by statements to the city objects previously. 
If you want to take a look for yourself, you can download the scene here:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/ccp3kv21k3oldvl/GH_LoadingScreen_src_v2_6_0.zip

The file to render is called "gh_scene_spinner_cutaway_e.pov".


Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 1/26/2016 3:34 AM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 1/24/2016 7:17 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> Here's the latest render from inside the ship. Way too much glare! I
>> will explore ways to reduce the glare but I'm not sure what will be
>> effective.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
>
> I forgot to add that this image took about a week to render. I just
> turned on interior media and radiosity and it is rendering at 13ppm (and
> will probably drop lower at certain spots). So I estimate it will take
> between 1 and 2 months nonstop to fully render.
>
> :(
>
> AMD A8-5600K Trinity Quad-Core 3.6GHz
>

The render speed has actually improved to 75ppm. I am 17 hours into the 
render and am at 8% completion of the 1280x720px image! Yay!


Mike

Post a reply to this message

Thanks! :-D

Post a reply to this message

Same problem here. Just to render a part of the central hull of my
starship, it takes several days. I think, the problem is too many
individual shapes (like boxes and such).

I heard about a plugin for SketchUp, that can export to our POV-Ray
scene description language. As mesh.I am considering to design a number
of elements of my ship in Sketchup as meshes, and then add those meshes
to my POV-Ray scenes. I believe, I will gain render speed by replacing
hundreds of box with one single mesh shape. Could I be right with my
assumption?

Post a reply to this message

And I am happily rendering my spaceship at 17PPM. If I would render the
entire spaceship, I would expect to watch the finished render image in
somewhere in the 6th millennium AD...

Post a reply to this message

On 1/27/2016 11:32 AM, Sven Littkowski wrote:
> Same problem here. Just to render a part of the central hull of my
> starship, it takes several days. I think, the problem is too many
> individual shapes (like boxes and such).
>
> I heard about a plugin for SketchUp, that can export to our POV-Ray
> scene description language. As mesh.I am considering to design a number
> of elements of my ship in Sketchup as meshes, and then add those meshes
> to my POV-Ray scenes. I believe, I will gain render speed by replacing
> hundreds of box with one single mesh shape. Could I be right with my
> assumption?
>

I have not used SketchUp for some time and was going to say that most of 
the models looked very blocky and not very well textured. Then I 
rememberd that in the early days of TC-RTC a member used SketchUp with 
VRay. The models don't need to be blocky.

Have a look at:

http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/image/upload//chandan/pw-1250429739-final3.jpg

and his other one

http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/image/upload//chandan/pw-1245100893-Evidence_2.jpg

But if you are going to learn a new modeller why not give Blender a try?
I know it has a steep learning curve but it is not as bad as it was.
In both PovRay plugins* you can use PovCode for texturing.


* There is an official PovRay exporter and LanuHum's unofficial one.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

I even have Blender installed. But I don't get the beginning
understanding. I find it in general too difficult, to learn to use
WYSIWYG editors. I code all my scenes by hand, and out of my head. Much
easier. SketchUp is kinda more like drawing and then making it 3D. But I
will try again with Blender.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/27/2016 7:55 PM, Sven Littkowski wrote:
> I even have Blender installed. But I don't get the beginning
> understanding. I find it in general too difficult, to learn to use
> WYSIWYG editors.

I remember that you have mentioned that before.

> I code all my scenes by hand, and out of my head. Much
> easier.

Not for me it's not. :(

> SketchUp is kinda more like drawing and then making it 3D. But I
> will try again with Blender.
>
Don't do it just because I suggest it. I'm concerned that unless you 
become more than competent in UV mapping. Texturing a ginormous mesh 
will be very hard.
Do you know about inkscape? Blender can take a 2D drawing done in 
inkscape and extend it in the third dimension. I mean that it can take a 
plan drawing and grow it upwards.
https://inkscape.org/en/

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 16-01-27 06:35, Sven Littkowski a écrit :
> And I am happily rendering my spaceship at 17PPM. If I would render the
> entire spaceship, I would expect to watch the finished render image in
> somewhere in the 6th millennium AD...
>
PPM. That's not so bad compared to single digit PPH I got for a special 
scene.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/27/2016 3:13 PM, Stephen wrote:
> Don't do it just because I suggest it. I'm concerned that unless you
> become more than competent in UV mapping. Texturing a ginormous mesh
> will be very hard.
> Do you know about inkscape? Blender can take a 2D drawing done in
> inkscape and extend it in the third dimension. I mean that it can take a
> plan drawing and grow it upwards.
> https://inkscape.org/en/
>

I wish POV-Ray had this feature.


Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 1/27/2016 9:40 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 1/27/2016 3:13 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> Don't do it just because I suggest it. I'm concerned that unless you
>> become more than competent in UV mapping. Texturing a ginormous mesh
>> will be very hard.
>> Do you know about inkscape? Blender can take a 2D drawing done in
>> inkscape and extend it in the third dimension. I mean that it can take a
>> plan drawing and grow it upwards.
>> https://inkscape.org/en/
>>
>
> I wish POV-Ray had this feature.
>

How about a height field, Mike?
That is similar and has more control of the height of the object.
Here is a signiture I did for an avatar a few years ago.

http://imgur.com/a/uPGFV#1


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 01/27/2016 05:14 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 1/27/2016 9:40 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> On 1/27/2016 3:13 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>> Do you know about inkscape? Blender can take a 2D drawing done in
>>> inkscape and extend it in the third dimension. I mean that it can take a
>>> plan drawing and grow it upwards.
>>> https://inkscape.org/en/
>>>
>>
>> I wish POV-Ray had this feature.
>>
>
> How about a height field, Mike?
> That is similar and has more control of the height of the object.
> Here is a signiture I did for an avatar a few years ago.
>
> http://imgur.com/a/uPGFV#1
>

Perhaps, Mike, I'm missing what you mean by your "wish" for 2d to 3d 
extrusion, but in addition to the height field technique Stephen 
mentions(1), Inkscape itself has a POV-Ray export to POV-Ray's 3d prism 
object. The export worked OK(2) a couple years ago when I tried it and I 
know Thomas has worked with it too for his Gancaloon project.

Maybe though, you want specifically a 2d to 3d-closed mesh on the fly?

Bill P.

(1) - Something similar to height_fields can be done with isosurfaces too.

(2) - I did see an issue with something like redundant points, which 
caused POV-Ray no issue, but did trip up another program in which I 
tried to use the bezier spline output.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/27/2016 11:01 PM, William F Pokorny wrote:
> Perhaps, Mike, I'm missing what you mean by your "wish" for 2d to 3d
> extrusion, but in addition to the height field technique Stephen
> mentions(1), Inkscape itself has a POV-Ray export to POV-Ray's 3d prism
> object. The export worked OK(2) a couple years ago when I tried it and I
> know Thomas has worked with it too for his Gancaloon project.
>
> Maybe though, you want specifically a 2d to 3d-closed mesh on the fly?
>
> Bill P.
>
> (1) - Something similar to height_fields can be done with isosurfaces too.
>
> (2) - I did see an issue with something like redundant points, which
> caused POV-Ray no issue, but did trip up another program in which I
> tried to use the bezier spline output.


Oh, I didn't know that about InkScape. I will have to try it out.


Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 27-1-2016 21:13, Stephen wrote:
> On 1/27/2016 7:55 PM, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>> I even have Blender installed. But I don't get the beginning
>> understanding. I find it in general too difficult, to learn to use
>> WYSIWYG editors.
>
> I remember that you have mentioned that before.
>
>> I code all my scenes by hand, and out of my head. Much
>> easier.
>
> Not for me it's not. :(

I am only partially able to do that and increasingly rely on external 
modellers. The advantage of those is that you can be as precise as with 
the POV-Ray coordinate system and model using their internal coordinates 
as input. Blender - I agree - still puts me out (but I am not 
persevering enough). Using Wings3D could be a good alternative? 
http://www.wings3d.com/

>
>> SketchUp is kinda more like drawing and then making it 3D. But I
>> will try again with Blender.
>>
> Don't do it just because I suggest it. I'm concerned that unless you
> become more than competent in UV mapping. Texturing a ginormous mesh
> will be very hard.
> Do you know about inkscape? Blender can take a 2D drawing done in
> inkscape and extend it in the third dimension. I mean that it can take a
> plan drawing and grow it upwards.
> https://inkscape.org/en/
>

Inkscape is an excellent tool indeed!

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Le 16-01-27 06:35, Sven Littkowski a écrit :
> And I am happily rendering my spaceship at 17PPM. If I would render the
> entire spaceship, I would expect to watch the finished render image in
> somewhere in the 6th millennium AD...
>
PPM. That's not so bad compared to single digit PPH I got for a special 
scene.

Post a reply to this message

Le 16-01-27 16:40, Mike Horvath a écrit :
> On 1/27/2016 3:13 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> Don't do it just because I suggest it. I'm concerned that unless you
>> become more than competent in UV mapping. Texturing a ginormous mesh
>> will be very hard.
>> Do you know about inkscape? Blender can take a 2D drawing done in
>> inkscape and extend it in the third dimension. I mean that it can take a
>> plan drawing and grow it upwards.
>> https://inkscape.org/en/
>>
>
> I wish POV-Ray had this feature.
>
>
> Mike

Looks suspiciously like a prism.
You define a shape, like you do for a poligon, on the x-z plane and 
extrude it along the y axis to the hight you want.

Post a reply to this message

Never heard, but fascinating. I will check it out!

Post a reply to this message

3DWings: same problem. takes too much concentration to learn this
modeller. I tried it once. Still, not giving up.

Post a reply to this message

On 28-1-2016 21:32, Sven Littkowski wrote:
> 3DWings: same problem. takes too much concentration to learn this
> modeller. I tried it once. Still, not giving up.
>

I can understand that. I think it is the way our brains function (or how 
we use our grey cells) that makes us more or less prone to learn quickly 
one method or another.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Yes. There are certain learning types among us humans. Some learn easier
while playing, others need to be alone, others do it again in a
different way. For me, mostly it's lack of time and explanations from
someone beside me.

but strange, still, that all that number writing is still easier for me,
than to use an editor where I can see what I am doing. :-)

Post a reply to this message

Since I don't have 6 months to render all 6 frames, I decided to create 
a panorama with most special features turned off. Enjoy.

http://isometricland.net/gearhead/ghpanotour_spinner.php


Mike

Post a reply to this message

Nice idea - I like it. Just the colors are very intensive. But then
again, a gray or otherwise dull environment would have a negative impact
on the psychology of your space colonists. Bright light and many strong
colors are known to have psychological advantages.

Post a reply to this message

Here is the final render, including all the surface features, 
atmosphere, area light, etc.

I am not doing another one of these any time soon, since it took over a 
week to render.


Mike

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'gh_scene_spinner_cutaway_e.png' (1416 KB)

Preview of image 'gh_scene_spinner_cutaway_e.png'

Hey, where is my long posting about air movement inside the cylinder?
What happened with it? I worked over half an hour on that detailed answer.

Post a reply to this message

Seems, I have to write again my answer to the question of air movement
inside such a cylinder. Don't like to have to work two times on it.... :-(

ABOUT AIR INSIDE A ROTATING CYLINDER

First, a few important points to be kept in mind when reading my answer:
1
Air is like all gases flexible.
2
Warm air has less weight than cold air.
3
Since even air has its weight, it also has its own inertia.

Now let me answer your question. The cylinder rotates, and its inner
sides contain objects, such as buildings, moving objects (like humans
and vehicles, maybe even animals), and also trees and other plants.
Those all will "push" the air and get thus the air into motion. Over
time, the air at around all these objects will gain almost the same
speed as the inner walls of the cylinder and the objects on it.

But since air is flexible, the air at the outer areas moves initially
faster than the air along the central middle axis of the cylinder, but
over time, that air there tends to gain speed, too, pushed by the air
from the outer areas.

However, since air has its own inertia, the air especially at the inside
will never reach a full 100% of the air movement close to the walls of
the cylinder. And that is a factor that will cause gentle winds to start
to come into existence where the air-pushing objects end (on their
roofs) and where the area with non-pushed air begins, as air will move
around the edges and corners of all objects and escape to the only
possible direction: towards the center of the cylinder.

And there is another factor that will cause the existence of gentle
winds: heat sources. Each mammal (including humans) and some other
animals (like birds) produce body heat that is usually a bit higher than
the surrounding air. Engines are also heat sources. Depending on the
light source at the one end of the cylinder, maybe even bright walls and
reflective windows or walls can become heat sources. That heated air
will move upwards towards the center axis of the cylinder due to its
lower weight, and pushes the cooler air from the center downwards
towards the cylinder walls. The opposite effect could be seen atop water
surfaces when large enough: through condensation, the air right above
those water areas will be cooler.

Another factor for wind is probably the light source self at the one end
of the cylinder. It will heat up the air, that air will rise up towards
the middle and cooler air will take that place. That cooler air will
warm up, too, and push upwards and therefore, warmer air will
concentrate along the middle axis of the cylinder, moving away from the
light source as it produces more and more warm air that follows and
pushes. More towards the other, non-illuminated end of that cylinder,
that warmer air will have cooled down and sinks downwards, and from
there back along the walls towards the light source.

This means, we have two wind directions based on heat: one from the
light source towards the other end of the cylinder, and one from the
walls (warm objects there) upwards towards the center axis. And we have
one wind direction due to the rotation of the walls with all their
objects on it, that is a little gentle wind that feels like against the
rotation of the cylinder, and exists mostly close to the larger buildings.

If that habitat cylinder would be kilometers wide, and also much longer,
the wind powers would be larger. But as it is, I believe, the wind
speeds will not exceed 3 km/hour, maybe even much less. To me, that
sounds like a pleasant location.

Post a reply to this message

On 5-2-2016 6:24, Sven Littkowski wrote:
> Hey, where is my long posting about air movement inside the cylinder?
> What happened with it? I worked over half an hour on that detailed answer.
>

So is my mention of reading 'Rendezvous with Rama' (where, by the way, 
the topic is also treated).

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 05.02.2016 um 06:49 schrieb Sven Littkowski:

> Now let me answer your question. The cylinder rotates, and its inner
> sides contain objects, such as buildings, moving objects (like humans
> and vehicles, maybe even animals), and also trees and other plants.
> Those all will "push" the air and get thus the air into motion. Over
> time, the air at around all these objects will gain almost the same
> speed as the inner walls of the cylinder and the objects on it.
> 
> But since air is flexible, the air at the outer areas moves initially
> faster than the air along the central middle axis of the cylinder, but
> over time, that air there tends to gain speed, too, pushed by the air
> from the outer areas.
> 
> However, since air has its own inertia, the air especially at the inside
> will never reach a full 100% of the air movement close to the walls of
> the cylinder.

You may be pretty much mistaken there.

First, let's look at what would happen /without/ any external influence.
If we do not input any energy, the system will approach equilibrium,
which would be characterized by the following conditions:

- All portions of the system will have the same temperature. As a
consequence, there will be no temperature-induced air movement.

- There will be no friction between the air and the ground, as any such
friction would transfer energy between the two, and therefore constitute
an indication that equilibrium has not yet been met. Note that absence
of friction between air and ground can only be achieved by having the
air rotate at the same speed as any ground structures at the same heigth.

- There will be no turbulences within the air, as any such turbulences
would transfer energy around within the body of air, and therefore again
constitute an indication that equilibrium has not yet been met. Note
that the absence of turbulences can only be achieved if the air moves
like a solid body would.

=> Without external energy input, the angular velocity will become
uniform across the entire system.


Now let's see what happens if we add a sustained heat source:

- If we heat up the air near the central axis, nothing much will happen:
Warmer air tends to travel inward, so we don't get any convection. We
would get some slow heat transfer outward, and a change in the pressure
gradient, but no noticeable movement.

- If on the other hand we heat up the air near the ground, that warmer
air will indeed, through convection, exchange its place with the cooler
air near the axis. However, as both layers of air initially have the
same angular velocity but different distance to the center, they have
different angular momentum, which needs to be conserved. The only two
mechanisms by which this can be achieved is (a) by transfer of angular
momentum from the warm air moving inward to the cold air moving outward
by means of friction (which is inefficient), or (b) by a change of
angular velocity in the respective bodies of air.

As a consequence, the warm inward-moving air will increase its angular
velocity beyond that of the ground, while the cold outward-moving air
will decrease its angular velocity below that of the ground, initially
resulting in a net wind at ground level.

- If the heat input continues, the convection will also continue, and
turbulences in the air will not subside; however, the net wind at ground
level will lead to a transfer of rotational energy between ground and
air until both ground and ground-level air generally move at the same
speed. Note that this effectively speeds up the ground-level air (while
slowing down the ground).

- The mechanism by which higher-level air is sped up, however, does
/not/ subside; to the contrary: With the ground-level air speeding up,
the difference in speed gets even more pronounced.


=> From what I see, we should expect the air near the ground to be
motionless overall, with winds only blowing from cooler ground regions
to warmer ones, while closer to the center we should expect a /higher/
angular air velocity than near the ground.

Post a reply to this message

Hi again, and thanks for the interesting sup topic we have entered here! :-)

At this interesting point, I would like to get some more input. I am
even considering, to post this question inside some Facebook or
independent Internet forum.

Post a reply to this message

On 2/5/2016 11:34 AM, Sven Littkowski wrote:
> Hi again, and thanks for the interesting sup topic we have entered here! :-)
>
> At this interesting point, I would like to get some more input. I am
> even considering, to post this question inside some Facebook or
> independent Internet forum.
>

Do so. :)
It has been asked before for instance

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=o%27neill+space+cylinder+air+pressure+gradient


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Thanks for the link. Reading through some of the Google search results
of that URL, I feel my thoughts confirmed (though they use a better
English than I can use, due to many correct terms, like "jet stream",
"coriolis", "topography", and such.

Post a reply to this message

On 02/05/2016 12:02 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 5-2-2016 6:24, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>> Hey, where is my long posting about air movement inside the cylinder?
>> What happened with it? I worked over half an hour on that detailed answer.
>>
>
> So is my mention of reading 'Rendezvous with Rama' (where, by the way, the topic is
also treated).
>
???  They both came through fine for me, using Thunderbird.

      -=- Larry -=-

Post a reply to this message

On 2/6/2016 7:22 AM, Sven Littkowski wrote:
> Thanks for the link. Reading through some of the Google search results
> of that URL, I feel my thoughts confirmed (though they use a better
> English than I can use, due to many correct terms, like "jet stream",
> "coriolis", "topography", and such.
>

That was only one link that I could retrieve from memory. If you vary 
the terms there should be more relevant results.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 6-2-2016 8:36, Larry Hudson wrote:
> On 02/05/2016 12:02 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 5-2-2016 6:24, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>>> Hey, where is my long posting about air movement inside the cylinder?
>>> What happened with it? I worked over half an hour on that detailed
>>> answer.
>>>
>>
>> So is my mention of reading 'Rendezvous with Rama' (where, by the way,
>> the topic is also treated).
>>
> ???  They both came through fine for me, using Thunderbird.
>
>       -=- Larry -=-
>
Strange... Here (Thunderbird) both messages have disappeared. Also on 
the site.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 06.02.2016 um 08:53 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 6-2-2016 8:36, Larry Hudson wrote:
>> On 02/05/2016 12:02 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 5-2-2016 6:24, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>>>> Hey, where is my long posting about air movement inside the cylinder?
>>>> What happened with it? I worked over half an hour on that detailed
>>>> answer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So is my mention of reading 'Rendezvous with Rama' (where, by the way,
>>> the topic is also treated).
>>>
>> ???  They both came through fine for me, using Thunderbird.
>>
>>       -=- Larry -=-
>>
> Strange... Here (Thunderbird) both messages have disappeared. Also on
> the site.

Same here: I /know/ they were there, but I can't seem to find them anymore.

Post a reply to this message

On 2/6/2016 1:42 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 06.02.2016 um 08:53 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 6-2-2016 8:36, Larry Hudson wrote:
>>> On 02/05/2016 12:02 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> On 5-2-2016 6:24, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>>>>> Hey, where is my long posting about air movement inside the cylinder?
>>>>> What happened with it? I worked over half an hour on that detailed
>>>>> answer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So is my mention of reading 'Rendezvous with Rama' (where, by the way,
>>>> the topic is also treated).
>>>>
>>> ???  They both came through fine for me, using Thunderbird.
>>>
>>>        -=- Larry -=-
>>>
>> Strange... Here (Thunderbird) both messages have disappeared. Also on
>> the site.
>
> Same here: I /know/ they were there, but I can't seem to find them anymore.
>

Yes, me too.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Looks like a web page scripting problem (PHP?), or like a database
problem. In both cases, it needs to be investigated as it is a serious
problem.

Post a reply to this message

In the very worst case scenario: hackers making a joke by beginning to
delete here and there our postings...

Post a reply to this message

Oh, what I found, was really good enough. It confirmed what I wrote
before. :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 2/6/2016 8:42 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 06.02.2016 um 08:53 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 6-2-2016 8:36, Larry Hudson wrote:
>>> On 02/05/2016 12:02 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> On 5-2-2016 6:24, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>>>>> Hey, where is my long posting about air movement inside the cylinder?
>>>>> What happened with it? I worked over half an hour on that detailed
>>>>> answer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So is my mention of reading 'Rendezvous with Rama' (where, by the way,
>>>> the topic is also treated).
>>>>
>>> ???  They both came through fine for me, using Thunderbird.
>>>
>>>        -=- Larry -=-
>>>
>> Strange... Here (Thunderbird) both messages have disappeared. Also on
>> the site.
>
> Same here: I /know/ they were there, but I can't seem to find them anymore.
>
I saw them in a different thread, don't remember which.

Post a reply to this message

I've attached the latest exterior version of the ship.

It just occurred to me that the spinning habitat sections probably don't 
function properly under thrust, unless the thrust is very weak. I didn't 
think of that until now. :(


Mike

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'gh_scene_spinner_exterior_a_askhsada.png' (3051 KB)

Preview of image 'gh_scene_spinner_exterior_a_askhsada.png'

Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I've attached the latest exterior version of the ship.
>
> It just occurred to me that the spinning habitat sections probably don't
> function properly under thrust, unless the thrust is very weak. I didn't
> think of that until now. :(
>
>
> Mike

#include "InertialDampener.inc"

;)  :D

Post a reply to this message

On 10-4-2017 21:01, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> I've attached the latest exterior version of the ship.
>>
>> It just occurred to me that the spinning habitat sections probably don't
>> function properly under thrust, unless the thrust is very weak. I didn't
>> think of that until now. :(
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
> #include "InertialDampener.inc"
>
> ;)  :D
>

That include solves all the problems indeed but in the absence of it:

Tie everything down when under thrust. It was the problem faced by the 
Rama builders, but also by the later Pak when they moved the Ringworld 
to a new sun. ;-)

[see: Rendez-vous with Rama and The Ringworld Children]

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 4/11/2017 2:49 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> That include solves all the problems indeed but in the absence of it:
>
> Tie everything down when under thrust. It was the problem faced by the
> Rama builders, but also by the later Pak when they moved the Ringworld
> to a new sun. ;-)
>
> [see: Rendez-vous with Rama and The Ringworld Children]
>

I vaguely remember the first, and haven't gotten as far as the second 
yet. :)


Mike

Post a reply to this message

Latest render. Minor modifications to the model since whenever I last worked on
it, but I added the planet in the background.

The files are on a GitHub repository now.

https://github.com/mjhorvath/GearHead-Loading-Screens


Mike

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'gh_scene_spinner_exterior_b.fs.png' (2257 KB)

Preview of image 'gh_scene_spinner_exterior_b.fs.png'

On 1/15/21 11:46 PM, posfan12 wrote:
> Latest render. Minor modifications to the model since whenever I last worked on
> it, but I added the planet in the background.
> 
> The files are on a GitHub repository now.
> 
> https://github.com/mjhorvath/GearHead-Loading-Screens

Ohhhh, very nice! Such a lot of details. I love the cityscape one on the 
inside of the tube!

What's the thin parabolic girder/net good for?

-- 
Some of my PovRay works:
https://www.deviantart.com/antarasol/gallery/42758766/3D

Post a reply to this message

On 1/16/2021 6:49 PM, Hj. Malthaner wrote:
> On 1/15/21 11:46 PM, posfan12 wrote:
>> Latest render. Minor modifications to the model since whenever I last 
>> worked on
>> it, but I added the planet in the background.
>>
>> The files are on a GitHub repository now.
>>
>> https://github.com/mjhorvath/GearHead-Loading-Screens
> 
> Ohhhh, very nice! Such a lot of details. I love the cityscape one on the 
> inside of the tube!
> 

Thanks! I tweaked Citygen by Chris Colefax. The shapes of the storeys 
actually are cylindrical too. And the walls point toward the central axis.



> What's the thin parabolic girder/net good for?
> 


It's supposed to deflect dust using EM or static electricity. I made it 
up. I don't think there is any actual science to it.



Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 1/17/21 8:44 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 1/16/2021 6:49 PM, Hj. Malthaner wrote:

>> What's the thin parabolic girder/net good for?
> 
> It's supposed to deflect dust using EM or static electricity. I made it 
> up. I don't think there is any actual science to it.

Most atoms in space have lost electrons and therefore carry a positive 
charge. So it might just work.

-- 
Hajo

Post a reply to this message

On 1/18/2021 9:24 PM, Hj. Malthaner wrote:
> On 1/17/21 8:44 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> On 1/16/2021 6:49 PM, Hj. Malthaner wrote:
> 
>>> What's the thin parabolic girder/net good for?
>>
>> It's supposed to deflect dust using EM or static electricity. I made 
>> it up. I don't think there is any actual science to it.
> 
> Most atoms in space have lost electrons and therefore carry a positive 
> charge. So it might just work.
> 

Neat!


Mike

Post a reply to this message