On 08/08/2018 22:12, Alain wrote:
> Le 18-08-07 à 11:20, Stephen a écrit :
> 
>> Thanks Alain, I seldom use area lights and this is the first time I 
>> have used adaptive.
>> When you said samples is that what the offline help names Size_1 & 
>> Size_2, in the line;
>> AXIS_1_VECTOR, AXIS_2_VECTOR, Size_1, Size_2?
>>
> 
> Yes, Size_1 and Size_2.
> 
> AXIS_1_VECTOR and AXIS_2_VECTOR set the extent of the area_light.
> Size_1 and Size_2 set the number of components, or samples, in the 
> area_light.
> 
> When using orient, the pairs need to be of the same size. The 
> AXIS_n_VECTORs need to have the same length and be perpendicular.
> And, you need Size_1 = Size_2.
> 
> When using adaptive, always start with adaptive 0 and only increase if 
> you really need to.
> 
> 
> 

Thanks for the advice Alain


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 8/8/2018 10:08 AM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> However, I had to double the height of the shadow squares in order to 
> block out the sun. See the parameter `RWorld_Shadow_Square_Width`. I'm 
> not sure why this was necessary, as the original height was equal to the 
> sun's diameter, and should have fully blocked its light.

I am dumb. Instead of specifying the area light's axis vectors in the 
form of:

     x * foo, y * foo


I was instead simply using:

     foo, foo

which is the same as:

     <foo,foo,foo>, <foo,foo,foo>

which is too long.

I fixed that and things are fine now. Doing another really big render at 
the moment. It might take over a day to render.


Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 8/8/2018 5:35 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 08/08/2018 22:02, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> On 8/8/2018 1:05 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 08/08/2018 15:08, Mike Horvath wrote:
>>>> Okay, I uploaded my scene to here:
>>>>
>>>>
http://lib.povray.org/searchcollection/index2.php?objectName=Ringworld&version=2.0&contributorTag=SharkD

>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also attached my latest render to this post. The shadow squares' 
>>>> widths now match what was apparently stated in the books. The 
>>>> shadowed regions on the ring look much better now.
>>>>
>>>> However, I had to double the height of the shadow squares in order 
>>>> to block out the sun. See the parameter 
>>>> `RWorld_Shadow_Square_Width`. I'm not sure why this was necessary, 
>>>> as the original height was equal to the sun's diameter, and should 
>>>> have fully blocked its light.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do the two area_light vectors <Axis_1> and <Axis_2> extend beyond the 
>>> star's volume?
>>>
>>
>> 1. the axis lengths are equal to the sun's diameter

Oops! I screwed up here. See my other post. They're fixed now.



>> 2. the area light is circular and oriented
>> 3. the sun's diameter should be equal to the shadow squares' height 
>> according to Niven's website
> 
> Just a check list.
> I just noticed that the data I was looking at was from the game. Oops.
> 

Here's a scan from the game:

https://img.fireden.net/tg/image/1464/06/1464060167901.jpg

The shadow squares seem much smaller than they should be.



> 
>> 4. an array of point lights in the shape of a sphere does not suffer 
>> from the issues I'm experiencing
>>
> 
> How do you do that without them clustering at the poles?
> 
> 

I don't. They do cluster! I should investigate a "good enough" sphere 
packing formula.



>>
>>>> Oh well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I like the image especially the shadows cast by the shadow squares in 
>>> the solar wind. :)
>>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>>> Unfortunately I don't have CIE.inc or lightsys.inc installed. :(
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I use them in nearly everything. Not sure why. Probably just habit.
>>
>>
> Probably a good habit to have.
> 
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

Here's a partial render.

I would like to make the edge of the sun a bit sharper, and also make 
the sun smaller while keeping the haze generally the same. Here is the 
sphere I use for this:


/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
#declare RWorld_Corona_Radius			= 95000*4;
#declare RWorld_Corona_Object = sphere
{
     0, RWorld_Corona_Radius
     hollow
     material
     {
         texture
         {
             pigment {rgbt 1}
         }
         interior
         {
             media
             {
                 scattering {1, RWorld_Light_Point_Color/2000}
                 density
                 {
                     function {1/(x*x + y*y + z*z)/RWorld_Corona_Radius}
                     density_map
                     {
                         [0.0 rgb 0]
                         [1.0 rgb 1]
                     }
                     scale RWorld_Corona_Radius
                 }
             }
         }
     }
}
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


Any idea on how I can accomplish this?

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'sdsadasdsa.png' (273 KB)

Preview of image 'sdsadasdsa.png'

On 9-8-2018 8:07, Mike Horvath wrote:
> Here's a partial render.
> 
> I would like to make the edge of the sun a bit sharper, and also make 
> the sun smaller while keeping the haze generally the same. Here is the 
> sphere I use for this:
> 
> 
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> #declare RWorld_Corona_Radius            = 95000*4;
> #declare RWorld_Corona_Object = sphere
> {
>      0, RWorld_Corona_Radius
>      hollow
>      material
>      {
>          texture
>          {
>              pigment {rgbt 1}
>          }
>          interior
>          {
>              media
>              {
>                  scattering {1, RWorld_Light_Point_Color/2000}
>                  density
>                  {
>                      function {1/(x*x + y*y +
z*z)/RWorld_Corona_Radius}
>                      density_map
>                      {
>                          [0.0 rgb 0]
>                          [1.0 rgb 1]
>                      }
>                      scale RWorld_Corona_Radius
>                  }
>              }
>          }
>      }
> }
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> 
> 
> Any idea on how I can accomplish this?
> 
> 

I would suggest to play with the settings of the density_map. Not 
tested, but something like:

density_map {
   [0.00 rgb 0.0]
   [0.90 rgb 0.9]
   [0.90 rgb 1.0]
}


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 8/9/2018 2:40 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I would suggest to play with the settings of the density_map. Not 
> tested, but something like:
> 
> density_map {
>    [0.00 rgb 0.0]
>    [0.90 rgb 0.9]
>    [0.90 rgb 1.0]
> }
> 
> 

Yeah, I thought of that too, but haven't been successful.

I also tried changing the formula so that x y and z are cubed instead of 
squared, but it turned the whole image black!

Meh.


Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 08/08/2018 12:08, Thomas de Groot wrote:

>>
> 
> I often need to take stock again and again of the gigantic distances and 
> sizes we are dealing with in a planetary system. It is something quite 
> difficult to grasp, and rendering things like the Ringworld makes us 
> forget them, reducing them to simple rings to be taken into our hands ;-)
> 

Translating from the mind's eye to reality is always a problem with 
planetary scales.

I wonder if it is possible to use a log rather than a linear scale along 
the axis.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 9-8-2018 10:10, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 8/9/2018 2:40 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> I would suggest to play with the settings of the density_map. Not 
>> tested, but something like:
>>
>> density_map {
>>    [0.00 rgb 0.0]
>>    [0.90 rgb 0.9]
>>    [0.90 rgb 1.0]
>> }
>>
>>
> 
> Yeah, I thought of that too, but haven't been successful.
> 
> I also tried changing the formula so that x y and z are cubed instead of 
> squared, but it turned the whole image black!
> 
> Meh.
> 
> 
> Mike

I tested this and it looks acceptable to me:

#local MyScale = 10;

sphere {
   0, 1
   hollow
   texture {pigment {rgbt 1}}
   interior {
     media {
       emission 3/MyScale
       density{
         spherical
         density_map {
           [0.10 rgb <0.0, 0, 0.0>]
           [0.95 rgb <1.0, 1.0, 1.0>*0.2]
           [0.95 rgb <1.0, 1.0, 1.0>]
         }
       }
     }
   }
   scale MyScale
}

Instead of 'spherical', you may need something else more appropriate. I 
have problems with the function you use for the density map.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 9-8-2018 13:11, Stephen wrote:
> On 08/08/2018 12:08, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> 
>>>
>>
>> I often need to take stock again and again of the gigantic distances 
>> and sizes we are dealing with in a planetary system. It is something 
>> quite difficult to grasp, and rendering things like the Ringworld 
>> makes us forget them, reducing them to simple rings to be taken into 
>> our hands ;-)
>>
> 
> Translating from the mind's eye to reality is always a problem with 
> planetary scales.

Indeed. It is not just a matter of scaling up or scaling down the model. 
More is involved.

> 
> I wonder if it is possible to use a log rather than a linear scale along 
> the axis.
> 

I'll leave that to my betters, but it might be an interesting and 
worthwhile experiment.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

I would like to make the edge of the sun a bit sharper, and also make
the sun smaller

while keeping the haze generally the same.

Any idea on how I can accomplish this?

Draw out the graph of the density you want, and then add those functions
together.  Make use of select() if you have to.

I think there is a way to use splines in functions as well.

Post a reply to this message

On 09/08/2018 00:37, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 8/8/2018 5:35 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 08/08/2018 22:02, Mike Horvath wrote:
>>> On 8/8/2018 1:05 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>>> On 08/08/2018 15:08, Mike Horvath wrote:
>>>>> Okay, I uploaded my scene to here:
>>>>>
>>>>>
http://lib.povray.org/searchcollection/index2.php?objectName=Ringworld&version=2.0&contributorTag=SharkD

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I also attached my latest render to this post. The shadow squares' 
>>>>> widths now match what was apparently stated in the books. The 
>>>>> shadowed regions on the ring look much better now.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I had to double the height of the shadow squares in order 
>>>>> to block out the sun. See the parameter 
>>>>> `RWorld_Shadow_Square_Width`. I'm not sure why this was necessary, 
>>>>> as the original height was equal to the sun's diameter, and should 
>>>>> have fully blocked its light.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do the two area_light vectors <Axis_1> and <Axis_2> extend beyond 
>>>> the star's volume?
>>>>
>>>
>>> 1. the axis lengths are equal to the sun's diameter
> 
> Oops! I screwed up here. See my other post. They're fixed now.
> 
> 
> 
>>> 2. the area light is circular and oriented
>>> 3. the sun's diameter should be equal to the shadow squares' height 
>>> according to Niven's website
>>
>> Just a check list.
>> I just noticed that the data I was looking at was from the game. Oops.
>>
> 
> Here's a scan from the game:
> 
> https://img.fireden.net/tg/image/1464/06/1464060167901.jpg
> 
> The shadow squares seem much smaller than they should be.
> 
> 

It looks deliberate to give unequal day night cycles.

I can't remember what the book said.

> 
>>
>>> 4. an array of point lights in the shape of a sphere does not suffer 
>>> from the issues I'm experiencing
>>>
>>
>> How do you do that without them clustering at the poles?
>>
>>
> 
> I don't. They do cluster! I should investigate a "good enough" sphere 
> packing formula.

 From my reading. There is no general solution for placing equidistant 
points on a sphere. :(


I have managed to extract the coords of a Blender Icosphere which is 
made up of equilateral triangles. 42 points, a bit on the high side for 
lights. If it is any use here they are.
BTW Blender used Z up coords.

         <0.000000, 0.000000, -1.000000>,
         <0.723607, -0.525725, -0.447220>,
         <-0.276388, -0.850649, -0.447220>,
         <-0.894426, 0.000000, -0.447216>,
         <-0.276388, 0.850649, -0.447220>,
         <0.723607, 0.525725, -0.447220>,
         <0.276388, -0.850649, 0.447220>,
         <-0.723607, -0.525725, 0.447220>,
         <-0.723607, 0.525725, 0.447220>,
         <0.276388, 0.850649, 0.447220>,
         <0.894426, 0.000000, 0.447216>,
         <0.000000, 0.000000, 1.000000>,
         <-0.162456, -0.499995, -0.850654>,
         <0.425323, -0.309011, -0.850654>,
         <0.262869, -0.809012, -0.525738>,
         <0.850648, 0.000000, -0.525736>,
         <0.425323, 0.309011, -0.850654>,
         <-0.525730, 0.000000, -0.850652>,
         <-0.688189, -0.499997, -0.525736>,
         <-0.162456, 0.499995, -0.850654>,
         <-0.688189, 0.499997, -0.525736>,
         <0.262869, 0.809012, -0.525738>,
         <0.951058, -0.309013, 0.000000>,
         <0.951058, 0.309013, 0.000000>,
         <0.000000, -1.000000, 0.000000>,
         <0.587786, -0.809017, 0.000000>,
         <-0.951058, -0.309013, 0.000000>,
         <-0.587786, -0.809017, 0.000000>,
         <-0.587786, 0.809017, 0.000000>,
         <-0.951058, 0.309013, 0.000000>,
         <0.587786, 0.809017, 0.000000>,
         <0.000000, 1.000000, 0.000000>,
         <0.688189, -0.499997, 0.525736>,
         <-0.262869, -0.809012, 0.525738>,
         <-0.850648, 0.000000, 0.525736>,
         <-0.262869, 0.809012, 0.525738>,
         <0.688189, 0.499997, 0.525736>,
         <0.162456, -0.499995, 0.850654>,
         <0.525730, 0.000000, 0.850652>,
         <-0.425323, -0.309011, 0.850654>,
         <-0.425323, 0.309011, 0.850654>,
         <0.162456, 0.499995, 0.850654>



-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 08/08/2018 20:31, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > I don't remember any of the details any more,
>
> There is a link on this site. ;)
> http://www.infradead.org/~wmp/proj_rings.html

Ha, that's me told. I'd forgotten that page was still up! I keep meaning to
redesign the site, it looks nice but could do with being a little more
minimalistic methinks...

Bill

Post a reply to this message

On 09/08/2018 19:29, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> On 08/08/2018 20:31, Bill Pragnell wrote:
>>> I don't remember any of the details any more,
>>
>> There is a link on this site. ;)
>> http://www.infradead.org/~wmp/proj_rings.html
> 
> Ha, that's me told. 

That's me. Stevie Subtly McAvoy. ;)

Anything to get you involved again. :)


I'd forgotten that page was still up! I keep meaning to
> redesign the site, it looks nice but could do with being a little more
> minimalistic methinks...
> 

In your own time.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 09/08/2018 19:29, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > Ha, that's me told.
>
> That's me. Stevie Subtly McAvoy. ;)
>
> Anything to get you involved again. :)

I'm still around, lurking! Too many small children afoot for sustained povraying
at the moment. I can never resist a Ringworld tho :D

> I'd forgotten that page was still up! I keep meaning to
> > redesign the site, it looks nice but could do with being a little more
> > minimalistic methinks...
>
> In your own time.

I made a start a few years back, but never got around to the main site.
Something like this:
http://www.infradead.org/~wmp/polyhedra/poly_index.html

Post a reply to this message

Latest render. Took roughly a whole day to render. I think I'm done with 
this scene for the time being.


Mike

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'ringworld_regular_save_09.png' (653 KB)

Preview of image 'ringworld_regular_save_09.png'

On 10-8-2018 7:36, Mike Horvath wrote:
> Latest render. Took roughly a whole day to render. I think I'm done with 
> this scene for the time being.
> 
> 
> Mike

Well, that looks good, doesn't it? Well done.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 10/08/2018 07:23, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 10-8-2018 7:36, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> Latest render. Took roughly a whole day to render. I think I'm done 
>> with this scene for the time being.
>>
>>
>> Mike
> 
> Well, that looks good, doesn't it? Well done.
> 

I would go as far as saying very good. :D

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 8/10/2018 3:09 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 10/08/2018 07:23, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 10-8-2018 7:36, Mike Horvath wrote:
>>> Latest render. Took roughly a whole day to render. I think I'm done 
>>> with this scene for the time being.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>> Well, that looks good, doesn't it? Well done.
>>
> 
> I would go as far as saying very good. :D
> 

THANK YOU!!!

Post a reply to this message

On 09/08/2018 21:10, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> On 09/08/2018 19:29, Bill Pragnell wrote:
>>> Ha, that's me told.
>>
>> That's me. Stevie Subtly McAvoy. ;)
>>
>> Anything to get you involved again. :)
> 
> I'm still around, lurking! Too many small children afoot for sustained povraying
> at the moment. 

o_O
^_^

> I can never resist a Ringworld tho :D
> 

I wish we had made a "Ringworld from the surface" round in TC-RTC. But I 
suppose that it would have been too hard. I certainly found the scales 
very difficult to work with.


>> I'd forgotten that page was still up! I keep meaning to
>>> redesign the site, it looks nice but could do with being a little more
>>> minimalistic methinks...
>>
>> In your own time.
> 
> I made a start a few years back, but never got around to the main site.
> Something like this:
> http://www.infradead.org/~wmp/polyhedra/poly_index.html
> 
> 
> 
Tease! No code. :(
They look good. I like the settings.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 16-8-2018 12:53, Stephen wrote:
> I wish we had made a "Ringworld from the surface" round in TC-RTC. But I 
> suppose that it would have been too hard. I certainly found the scales 
> very difficult to work with.
> 

The only way I discovered was to decouple the Ringworld proper and the 
scene at the surface.

http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C4c24a930%241%40news.povray.org%3E/


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 16/08/2018 12:08, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 16-8-2018 12:53, Stephen wrote:
>> I wish we had made a "Ringworld from the surface" round in TC-RTC. But 
>> I suppose that it would have been too hard. I certainly found the 
>> scales very difficult to work with.
>>
> 
> The only way I discovered was to decouple the Ringworld proper and the 
> scene at the surface.
> 

I know but that leaves a cheat-y feeling.


>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C4c24a930%241%40news.povray.org%3E/

> 
> 
> 


I remember it. :)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> o_O
> ^_^

more like -_- z Z

> Tease! No code. :(

Search for 'polyhedra' in the object collection :)


Bill

Post a reply to this message

On 16-8-2018 13:55, Stephen wrote:
> On 16/08/2018 12:08, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 16-8-2018 12:53, Stephen wrote:
>>> I wish we had made a "Ringworld from the surface" round in TC-RTC. 
>>> But I suppose that it would have been too hard. I certainly found the 
>>> scales very difficult to work with.
>>>
>>
>> The only way I discovered was to decouple the Ringworld proper and the 
>> scene at the surface.
>>
> 
> I know but that leaves a cheat-y feeling.

Yes, but it is unavoidable as you have to deal with extremely large 
objects (the Ring) together with a detailed scene around the camera. The 
two just don't fit together in the same physical model where POV-Ray is 
concerned without serious artefacts. And it is hardly necessary: the 
Ringworld experience for an observer would be something like watching 
the Moon in our sky, disconnected from the immediate world he/she lives in.

> 
> 
>>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C4c24a930%241%40news.povray.org%3E/

>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> I remember it. :)
> 
> 

Still one of my references where Ringworld-building is concerned.


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 17/08/2018 09:55, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 16-8-2018 13:55, Stephen wrote:
>> On 16/08/2018 12:08, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 16-8-2018 12:53, Stephen wrote:
>>>> I wish we had made a "Ringworld from the surface" round in TC-RTC. 
>>>> But I suppose that it would have been too hard. I certainly found 
>>>> the scales very difficult to work with.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The only way I discovered was to decouple the Ringworld proper and 
>>> the scene at the surface.
>>>
>>
>> I know but that leaves a cheat-y feeling.
> 
> Yes, but it is unavoidable as you have to deal with extremely large 
> objects (the Ring) together with a detailed scene around the camera. The 
> two just don't fit together in the same physical model where POV-Ray is 
> concerned without serious artefacts. And it is hardly necessary: the 
> Ringworld experience for an observer would be something like watching 
> the Moon in our sky, disconnected from the immediate world he/she lives in.
> 

What you say is so true.
I wonder how fast and at what elevation the ring arch would converge to 
a line.

>>
>>
>>>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C4c24a930%241%40news.povray.org%3E/

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I remember it. :)
>>
>>
> 
> Still one of my references where Ringworld-building is concerned.
> 
> 

No one's ever made a Discworld, have they?

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 17-8-2018 12:15, Stephen wrote:
> On 17/08/2018 09:55, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 16-8-2018 13:55, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 16/08/2018 12:08, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> On 16-8-2018 12:53, Stephen wrote:
>>>>> I wish we had made a "Ringworld from the surface" round in TC-RTC. 
>>>>> But I suppose that it would have been too hard. I certainly found 
>>>>> the scales very difficult to work with.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The only way I discovered was to decouple the Ringworld proper and 
>>>> the scene at the surface.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I know but that leaves a cheat-y feeling.
>>
>> Yes, but it is unavoidable as you have to deal with extremely large 
>> objects (the Ring) together with a detailed scene around the camera. 
>> The two just don't fit together in the same physical model where 
>> POV-Ray is concerned without serious artefacts. And it is hardly 
>> necessary: the Ringworld experience for an observer would be something 
>> like watching the Moon in our sky, disconnected from the immediate 
>> world he/she lives in.
>>
> 
> What you say is so true.
> I wonder how fast and at what elevation the ring arch would converge to 
> a line.

The attached image is one of my early tests of the true scale Ringworld 
model, with the shadow squares left out. It does not show the zenith but 
you can partly extrapolate. It shows nicely I think why the Ringworld is 
called the Arch by the natives.

> 
>>>
>>>
>>>>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C4c24a930%241%40news.povray.org%3E/

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I remember it. :)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Still one of my references where Ringworld-building is concerned.
>>
>>
> 
> No one's ever made a Discworld, have they?
> 

Not that I remember. I think I wanted to start once, intending to use 
elephant models of course, but it never got off the ground somehow.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'ringworld 2010_02.png' (55 KB)

Preview of image 'ringworld 2010_02.png'

On 2018-08-17 06:15 AM (-4), Stephen wrote:
>
> No one's ever made a Discworld, have they?

A key part of "science fiction" is "science."

Post a reply to this message

On 17/08/2018 12:24, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 17-8-2018 12:15, Stephen wrote:

>>>
>>
>> What you say is so true.
>> I wonder how fast and at what elevation the ring arch would converge 
>> to a line.
> 
> The attached image is one of my early tests of the true scale Ringworld 
> model, with the shadow squares left out. It does not show the zenith but 
> you can partly extrapolate. It shows nicely I think why the Ringworld is 
> called the Arch by the natives.
> 
>>

I get a similar view. I did an animation tilting the camera to the 
zenith. (The camera motion is not very good.)

https://youtu.be/hDSX1B8_8NI


>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C4c24a930%241%40news.povray.org%3E/

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I remember it. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Still one of my references where Ringworld-building is concerned.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No one's ever made a Discworld, have they?
>>
> 
> Not that I remember. I think I wanted to start once, intending to use 
> elephant models of course, but it never got off the ground somehow.
> 

Making the topography would be interesting.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 17/08/2018 12:31, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> On 2018-08-17 06:15 AM (-4), Stephen wrote:
>>
>> No one's ever made a Discworld, have they?
> 
> A key part of "science fiction" is "science."
> 

LOL True(ish) :)

There is always the Science of Discworld.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Science_of_Discworld


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 16/08/2018 21:38, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> o_O
>> ^_^
> 
> more like -_- z Z
> 
>> Tease! No code. :(
> 
> Search for 'polyhedra' in the object collection :)
> 
> 
> Bill
> 

:)
Thanks

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 18-8-2018 9:21, Stephen wrote:
> On 17/08/2018 12:24, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 17-8-2018 12:15, Stephen wrote:
> 
>>>>
>>>
>>> What you say is so true.
>>> I wonder how fast and at what elevation the ring arch would converge 
>>> to a line.
>>
>> The attached image is one of my early tests of the true scale 
>> Ringworld model, with the shadow squares left out. It does not show 
>> the zenith but you can partly extrapolate. It shows nicely I think why 
>> the Ringworld is called the Arch by the natives.
>>
>>>
> 
> I get a similar view. I did an animation tilting the camera to the 
> zenith. (The camera motion is not very good.)
> 
> https://youtu.be/hDSX1B8_8NI
> 

That looks how it is in reality :-)

> 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C4c24a930%241%40news.povray.org%3E/

>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember it. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Still one of my references where Ringworld-building is concerned.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No one's ever made a Discworld, have they?
>>>
>>
>> Not that I remember. I think I wanted to start once, intending to use 
>> elephant models of course, but it never got off the ground somehow.
>>
> 
> Making the topography would be interesting.
> 

And the rim. An interesting animation would be as viewed by the Fifth 
Elephant. :-

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 18/08/2018 12:05, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 18-8-2018 9:21, Stephen wrote:

>>
>> I get a similar view. I did an animation tilting the camera to the 
>> zenith. (The camera motion is not very good.)
>>
>> https://youtu.be/hDSX1B8_8NI
>>
> 
> That looks how it is in reality :-)
> 

I thought that the arch would be thinner. But there you go. :-)



>>>>
>>>> No one's ever made a Discworld, have they?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not that I remember. I think I wanted to start once, intending to use 
>>> elephant models of course, but it never got off the ground somehow.
>>>
>>
>> Making the topography would be interesting.
>>
> 
> And the rim. An interesting animation would be as viewed by the Fifth 
> Elephant. :-
> 


It would be easier than a Ringworld from ground level. The animation 
above was taken at 3 million kilometres above the ground.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:

> It would be easier than a Ringworld from ground level. The animation
> above was taken at 3 million kilometres above the ground.

So, approximately 509.8 million HemiDeciFeet.

(per furlong * minim^2 / grain * fortnights, of course)

Post a reply to this message

On 18-8-2018 18:50, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> 
>> It would be easier than a Ringworld from ground level. The animation
>> above was taken at 3 million kilometres above the ground.
> 
> So, approximately 509.8 million HemiDeciFeet.
> 
> (per furlong * minim^2 / grain * fortnights, of course)
> 

Somebody here got a rope? Tie him up! :-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 19/08/2018 07:24, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 18-8-2018 18:50, Bald Eagle wrote:
>> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>>
>>> It would be easier than a Ringworld from ground level. The animation
>>> above was taken at 3 million kilometres above the ground.
>>
>> So, approximately 509.8 million HemiDeciFeet.
>>
>> (per furlong * minim^2 / grain * fortnights, of course)
>>
> 
> Somebody here got a rope? Tie him up! :-)
> 

Give him coffee. :-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 19-8-2018 11:04, Stephen wrote:
> On 19/08/2018 07:24, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 18-8-2018 18:50, Bald Eagle wrote:
>>> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It would be easier than a Ringworld from ground level. The animation
>>>> above was taken at 3 million kilometres above the ground.
>>>
>>> So, approximately 509.8 million HemiDeciFeet.
>>>
>>> (per furlong * minim^2 / grain * fortnights, of course)
>>>
>>
>> Somebody here got a rope? Tie him up! :-)
>>
> 
> Give him coffee. :-)
> 

Strong. Black. No Sugar.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

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

> Strong. Black. No Sugar.

Always strong, when I can get it.

Usually black - though taking the time to prepare a proper Café au Lait
(Milchkaffee) can be a real treat - the scalded milk has a flavor that I'm not
sure can be replicated any other way.

Gotta have sugar.  Caffeine is just the foot on the gas pedal.  The sugar is
what feeds the engine.

Otherwise I get the shakes.   :D

Post a reply to this message

I would love a close-up view from the ground of that ring world! :-D

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com

Post a reply to this message

Le 18-09-16 à 11:47, Sven Littkowski a écrit :
> I would love a close-up view from the ground of that ring world! :-D
> 
> ---
> Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
> http://www.avg.com
> 

Just use a plane as the ground, then, use another render of the ring 
itself as a background.
If standing near a side wall, use a very long box on that side.

Post a reply to this message

On 9/16/2018 11:47 AM, Sven Littkowski wrote:
> I would love a close-up view from the ground of that ring world! :-D
> 
> ---
> Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
> http://www.avg.com
> 


Here is a closeup of the ground.

:)


Mike

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'ringworld_zoomed_save_02.png' (356 KB)

Preview of image 'ringworld_zoomed_save_02.png'

Reminds me for David Niven's book "River World". :-)

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com

Post a reply to this message

On 9/18/2018 2:58 PM, Sven Littkowski wrote:
> River World

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfs-BotdsVw

Post a reply to this message

On 19-9-2018 5:16, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 9/18/2018 2:58 PM, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>> River World

No, no: Philip José Farmer for that one.

> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfs-BotdsVw
> 
> 


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 19/09/2018 07:58, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 19-9-2018 5:16, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> On 9/18/2018 2:58 PM, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>>> River World
> 
> No, no: Philip José Farmer for that one.
> 
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfs-BotdsVw
>>
>>
> 
> 

And David Niven was an English actor.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 19-9-2018 9:36, Stephen wrote:
> On 19/09/2018 07:58, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 19-9-2018 5:16, Mike Horvath wrote:
>>> On 9/18/2018 2:58 PM, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>>>> River World
>>
>> No, no: Philip José Farmer for that one.
>>
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfs-BotdsVw
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> And David Niven was an English actor.
> 
> 

I had a blackout. :-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 19/09/2018 11:53, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 19-9-2018 9:36, Stephen wrote:
>> On 19/09/2018 07:58, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 19-9-2018 5:16, Mike Horvath wrote:
>>>> On 9/18/2018 2:58 PM, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>>>>> River World
>>>
>>> No, no: Philip José Farmer for that one.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfs-BotdsVw
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And David Niven was an English actor.
>>
>>
> 
> I had a blackout. :-)
> 

There is a link. His memoir "The Moon's a balloon"


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 19-9-2018 13:05, Stephen wrote:
> On 19/09/2018 11:53, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 19-9-2018 9:36, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 19/09/2018 07:58, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> On 19-9-2018 5:16, Mike Horvath wrote:
>>>>> On 9/18/2018 2:58 PM, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>>>>>> River World
>>>>
>>>> No, no: Philip José Farmer for that one.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfs-BotdsVw
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> And David Niven was an English actor.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I had a blackout. :-)
>>
> 
> There is a link. His memoir "The Moon's a balloon"
> 
> 

Lol. Yes indeed!

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

The movie is not as good as the various books of that amazing SciFi
novel series. I read all of them. Much better than that movie.

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com

Post a reply to this message

On 6-8-2018 23:15, Mike Horvath wrote:
> An old scene, but I've been sprucing it up in preparation toward 
> uploading it to the Object Collection. I can't remember if it's to 
> proper scale however. Also I'm thinking there may be a little too much 
> cloud cover.
> 

A reminder about Banks Orbitals in comparison to the traditional Ringworld.

https://orionsarm.com/eg-article/4845ef5c4ca7c


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 9/21/2018 3:33 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 6-8-2018 23:15, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> An old scene, but I've been sprucing it up in preparation toward 
>> uploading it to the Object Collection. I can't remember if it's to 
>> proper scale however. Also I'm thinking there may be a little too much 
>> cloud cover.
>>
> 
> A reminder about Banks Orbitals in comparison to the traditional Ringworld.
> 
> https://orionsarm.com/eg-article/4845ef5c4ca7c
> 
> 

Seems a lot cozier than a ringworld. Only 42 billion people!


Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 21-9-2018 9:39, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 9/21/2018 3:33 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 6-8-2018 23:15, Mike Horvath wrote:
>>> An old scene, but I've been sprucing it up in preparation toward 
>>> uploading it to the Object Collection. I can't remember if it's to 
>>> proper scale however. Also I'm thinking there may be a little too 
>>> much cloud cover.
>>>
>>
>> A reminder about Banks Orbitals in comparison to the traditional 
>> Ringworld.
>>
>> https://orionsarm.com/eg-article/4845ef5c4ca7c
>>
>>
> 
> Seems a lot cozier than a ringworld. Only 42 billion people!
> 
> 

It has many advantages over a ring and in The Culture universe created 
by Iain M. Banks, orbitals are very popular.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message