 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ringworld_fullscale_save_04.png' (533 KB)
Preview of image 'ringworld_fullscale_save_04.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/6/2018 5:15 PM, 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.
>
>
> Mike
Also, due to the sun being an area light, the unlit regions are much too
small.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/08/2018 22:34, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 8/6/2018 5:15 PM, 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.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
>
> Also, due to the sun being an area light, the unlit regions are much too
> small.
>
>
I got similar results when I tried it. I suspect Larry Niven got his
maths wrong. I had to move the shadow plates closer to the Ringworld to
get the day/night cycle equal.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-8-2018 8:22, Stephen wrote:
> On 06/08/2018 22:34, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> On 8/6/2018 5:15 PM, 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>>
>> Also, due to the sun being an area light, the unlit regions are much
>> too small.
>>
>>
>
> I got similar results when I tried it. I suspect Larry Niven got his
> maths wrong. I had to move the shadow plates closer to the Ringworld to
> get the day/night cycle equal.
>
>
That, or scale down the area_light's effective surface. At this
planetary scale the area effect would be hardly noticeable imo.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/08/2018 07:42, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 7-8-2018 8:22, Stephen wrote:
>> On 06/08/2018 22:34, Mike Horvath wrote:
>>> On 8/6/2018 5:15 PM, 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, due to the sun being an area light, the unlit regions are much
>>> too small.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I got similar results when I tried it. I suspect Larry Niven got his
>> maths wrong. I had to move the shadow plates closer to the Ringworld
>> to get the day/night cycle equal.
>>
>>
He is not the only one who got his maths wrong. Of course I meant closer
to the star.
>
> That, or scale down the area_light's effective surface. At this
> planetary scale the area effect would be hardly noticeable imo.
>
A point light gives the same result.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-8-2018 10:20, Stephen wrote:
> On 07/08/2018 07:42, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 7-8-2018 8:22, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 06/08/2018 22:34, Mike Horvath wrote:
>>>> On 8/6/2018 5:15 PM, 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also, due to the sun being an area light, the unlit regions are much
>>>> too small.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I got similar results when I tried it. I suspect Larry Niven got his
>>> maths wrong. I had to move the shadow plates closer to the Ringworld
>>> to get the day/night cycle equal.
>>>
>>>
> He is not the only one who got his maths wrong. Of course I meant closer
> to the star.
>
>>
>> That, or scale down the area_light's effective surface. At this
>> planetary scale the area effect would be hardly noticeable imo.
>>
>
> A point light gives the same result.
>
Right. I would suggest then to test with a point light, following
Stephen's maths, then try some area_light until it fits.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/08/2018 10:02, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 7-8-2018 10:20, Stephen wrote:
>> On 07/08/2018 07:42, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 7-8-2018 8:22, Stephen wrote:
>>>> On 06/08/2018 22:34, Mike Horvath wrote:
>>>>> On 8/6/2018 5:15 PM, 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, due to the sun being an area light, the unlit regions are
>>>>> much too small.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I got similar results when I tried it. I suspect Larry Niven got his
>>>> maths wrong. I had to move the shadow plates closer to the Ringworld
>>>> to get the day/night cycle equal.
>>>>
>>>>
>> He is not the only one who got his maths wrong. Of course I meant
>> closer to the star.
>>
>>>
>>> That, or scale down the area_light's effective surface. At this
>>> planetary scale the area effect would be hardly noticeable imo.
>>>
>>
>> A point light gives the same result.
>>
>
> Right. I would suggest then to test with a point light, following
> Stephen's maths, then try some area_light until it fits.
>
No, don't follow my maths.
Using the data from this site. I did a quick model.
http://www.alcyone.com/max/reference/scifi/ringworld.html
I adjusted the Shadow square ring radius until the day/night cycle
looked equal.(multiplied the radius by 0.587587699)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ring_3_0000.png' (14 KB)
Preview of image 'ring_3_0000.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/08/2018 11:29, Stephen wrote:
> No, don't follow my maths.
>
> Using the data from this site. I did a quick model.
> http://www.alcyone.com/max/reference/scifi/ringworld.html
> I adjusted the Shadow square ring radius until the day/night cycle
> looked equal.(multiplied the radius by 0.587587699)
A close up of the terminator on the Ringworld.
The area light does make a difference.
Using
light_source { // Light_Source2
< 0.000000, 0.000000, 0.000000 >, colour rgb <1.000,1.000,1.000>*1.500
area_light <3.400000,0.000000,0.000000>,
<0.000000,3.400000,0.000000>, 23, 23
circular
orient
adaptive 5
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ring_2bm2_0000.png' (9 KB)
Preview of image 'ring_2bm2_0000.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 07.08.2018 um 12:33 schrieb Stephen:
> A close up of the terminator on the Ringworld.
> The area light does make a difference.
> Using
> light_source { // Light_Source2
> < 0.000000, 0.000000, 0.000000 >, colour rgb <1.000,1.000,1.000>*1.500
> area_light <3.400000,0.000000,0.000000>, <0.000000,3.400000,0.000000>,
> 23, 23
>
> circular
> orient
> adaptive 5
And it better does. You don't want the light to blink off
instantaneously - you do want some twilight time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-8-2018 12:51, clipka wrote:
> Am 07.08.2018 um 12:33 schrieb Stephen:
>
>> A close up of the terminator on the Ringworld.
>> The area light does make a difference.
>> Using
>> light_source { // Light_Source2
>> < 0.000000, 0.000000, 0.000000 >, colour rgb <1.000,1.000,1.000>*1.500
>> area_light <3.400000,0.000000,0.000000>, <0.000000,3.400000,0.000000>,
>> 23, 23
>>
>> circular
>> orient
>> adaptive 5
>
> And it better does. You don't want the light to blink off
> instantaneously - you do want some twilight time.
>
I agree. What I meant earlier was that, with the camera at /planetary/
distances from the ring, the penumbra would hardly be visible. Up close,
and more so on the ring surface, of course the penumbra matters.
However, if the area_light is set while the camera is at a /planetary/
distance, it will most probably be grossly exaggerated because otherwise
you would not be able to see it properly in a render.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/08/2018 11:51, clipka wrote:
> Am 07.08.2018 um 12:33 schrieb Stephen:
>
>> A close up of the terminator on the Ringworld.
>> The area light does make a difference.
>> Using
>> light_source { // Light_Source2
>> < 0.000000, 0.000000, 0.000000 >, colour rgb <1.000,1.000,1.000>*1.500
>> area_light <3.400000,0.000000,0.000000>, <0.000000,3.400000,0.000000>,
>> 23, 23
>>
>> circular
>> orient
>> adaptive 5
>
> And it better does. You don't want the light to blink off
> instantaneously - you do want some twilight time.
>
That is the whole idea, I believe. ;)
As for maths the area_light axis vectors should be doubled to 6.8 not 3.4
I was thinking radius as opposed to diameter.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/08/2018 12:07, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 7-8-2018 12:51, clipka wrote:
>> Am 07.08.2018 um 12:33 schrieb Stephen:
>>
>>> A close up of the terminator on the Ringworld.
>>> The area light does make a difference.
>>> Using
>>> light_source { // Light_Source2
>>> < 0.000000, 0.000000, 0.000000 >, colour rgb
>>> <1.000,1.000,1.000>*1.500
>>> area_light <3.400000,0.000000,0.000000>,
>>> <0.000000,3.400000,0.000000>,
>>> 23, 23
>>>
>>> circular
>>> orient
>>> adaptive 5
>>
>> And it better does. You don't want the light to blink off
>> instantaneously - you do want some twilight time.
>>
>
> I agree. What I meant earlier was that, with the camera at /planetary/
> distances from the ring, the penumbra would hardly be visible. Up close,
> and more so on the ring surface, of course the penumbra matters.
> However, if the area_light is set while the camera is at a /planetary/
> distance, it will most probably be grossly exaggerated because otherwise
> you would not be able to see it properly in a render.
>
Do you mean that the penumbra would need to be exaggerated so it can be
seen?
I thought that too but when I created two big sticks located at opposite
sides of the star and clipping the same edge of a shadow square. The
divergence at the ring was quite large.
I might try moving the shadow square radius back to the quoted radius
and adjust the length of the shadow square to get equal day/night.
This image was taken from slightly beyond the other side of the ring and
above a bit.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ring_3c_0000.png' (17 KB)
Preview of image 'ring_3c_0000.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/08/2018 12:23, Stephen wrote:
> I might try moving the shadow square radius back to the quoted radius
> and adjust the length of the shadow square to get equal day/night.
As threatened. :-)
Twilight is less obvious.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ring_4_0000.png' (14 KB)
Preview of image 'ring_4_0000.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 18-08-07 à 06:33, Stephen a écrit :
> On 07/08/2018 11:29, Stephen wrote:
>> No, don't follow my maths.
>>
>> Using the data from this site. I did a quick model.
>> http://www.alcyone.com/max/reference/scifi/ringworld.html
>> I adjusted the Shadow square ring radius until the day/night cycle
>> looked equal.(multiplied the radius by 0.587587699)
>
> A close up of the terminator on the Ringworld.
> The area light does make a difference.
> Using
> light_source { // Light_Source2
> < 0.000000, 0.000000, 0.000000 >, colour rgb <1.000,1.000,1.000>*1.500
> area_light <3.400000,0.000000,0.000000>,
> <0.000000,3.400000,0.000000>, 23, 23
>
> circular
> orient
> adaptive 5
>
The 23, 23 get bumped up to 33, 33
adaptive 5 mean start at subdivision 5, or start with 33, 33 samples.
This effectively disable the adaptive optimization.
In the present case, adaptive 0 is good.
adaptive 0 start at 2 by 2
adaptive 1 start at 3 by 3
adaptive 2 start at 5 by 5
adaptive 3 start at 9 by 9
adaptive 4 start at 17 by 17
adaptive 5 start at 33 by 33
adaptive 6 start at 65 by 65
...
You need a number of samples at least 2 step up to get some appreciable
benefit. For adaptive 0, use at least 5 by 5, and 9 by 9 or more in most
cases.
For adaptive 1, better to start around 17 by 17.
For adaptive 5, you start to see an improvement around 129 by 129...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/08/2018 15:33, Alain wrote:
> Le 18-08-07 à 06:33, Stephen a écrit :
>>
>> A close up of the terminator on the Ringworld.
>> The area light does make a difference.
>> Using
>> light_source { // Light_Source2
>> < 0.000000, 0.000000, 0.000000 >, colour rgb <1.000,1.000,1.000>*1.500
>> area_light <3.400000,0.000000,0.000000>,
>> <0.000000,3.400000,0.000000>, 23, 23
>>
>> circular
>> orient
>> adaptive 5
>>
>
> The 23, 23 get bumped up to 33, 33
>
> adaptive 5 mean start at subdivision 5, or start with 33, 33 samples.
> This effectively disable the adaptive optimization.
> In the present case, adaptive 0 is good.
>
> adaptive 0 start at 2 by 2
> adaptive 1 start at 3 by 3
> adaptive 2 start at 5 by 5
> adaptive 3 start at 9 by 9
> adaptive 4 start at 17 by 17
> adaptive 5 start at 33 by 33
> adaptive 6 start at 65 by 65
> ....
>
> You need a number of samples at least 2 step up to get some appreciable
> benefit. For adaptive 0, use at least 5 by 5, and 9 by 9 or more in most
> cases.
> For adaptive 1, better to start around 17 by 17.
> For adaptive 5, you start to see an improvement around 129 by 129...
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?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/7/2018 4:20 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> That, or scale down the area_light's effective surface. At this
>> planetary scale the area effect would be hardly noticeable imo.
>>
>
> A point light gives the same result.
>
I tried a point light, and the day/night cycles were equal. But Niven
did specify the size of the star, and I checked my other numbers against
his and they match.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/7/2018 7:09 AM, Stephen wrote:
> That is the whole idea, I believe. ;)
>
> As for maths the area_light axis vectors should be doubled to 6.8 not 3.4
> I was thinking radius as opposed to diameter.
>
>
You just reminded me that I used the sun radius instead of diameter for
the area light axes.
When instead using the diameter, I get some fuzziness but no real "night".
Sorry, Niven. Your math is bad.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/08/2018 20:28, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 8/7/2018 7:09 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> That is the whole idea, I believe. ;)
>>
>> As for maths the area_light axis vectors should be doubled to 6.8 not 3.4
>> I was thinking radius as opposed to diameter.
>>
>>
>
> You just reminded me that I used the sun radius instead of diameter for
> the area light axes.
>
I now feel better. ;)
> When instead using the diameter, I get some fuzziness but no real "night".
>
You don't have an "ambient" in there? (Before Clipka says anything. ;) )
> Sorry, Niven. Your math is bad.
Funnily enough, I did not notice that when I read the books. ;)
It is PovRay's fault. It is too realistic. :)
I think it is better to bring the shadow shields nearer the sun, for the
data I found.
This last image (I promise) using Alain's settings, has a stary
background to show that the night part of the ring is occluding the stars.
BTW Thanks for starting the thread. It has been a distraction for me
when I don't feel up to starting a new project.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ring_3d_0000.png' (16 KB)
Preview of image 'ring_3d_0000.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/7/2018 5:52 PM, Stephen wrote:
> Funnily enough, I did not notice that when I read the books. ;)
> It is PovRay's fault. It is too realistic. :)
>
> I think it is better to bring the shadow shields nearer the sun, for the
> data I found.
>
> This last image (I promise) using Alain's settings, has a stary
> background to show that the night part of the ring is occluding the stars.
>
> BTW Thanks for starting the thread. It has been a distraction for me
> when I don't feel up to starting a new project.
>
>
Hold on. I just noticed I wasn't using the correct sizes for the shadow
squares. And I had 40 of them instead of 20. I will need to redo them.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-8-2018 14:01, Stephen wrote:
> On 07/08/2018 12:23, Stephen wrote:
>> I might try moving the shadow square radius back to the quoted radius
>> and adjust the length of the shadow square to get equal day/night.
>
> As threatened. :-)
>
> Twilight is less obvious.
>
Yes, but I think it is looking natural from that distance. On the ring,
twilight would be gradual, as expected.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/08/2018 07:22, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 7-8-2018 14:01, Stephen wrote:
>> On 07/08/2018 12:23, Stephen wrote:
>>> I might try moving the shadow square radius back to the quoted radius
>>> and adjust the length of the shadow square to get equal day/night.
>>
>> As threatened. :-)
>>
>> Twilight is less obvious.
>>
>
> Yes, but I think it is looking natural from that distance. On the ring,
> twilight would be gradual, as expected.
>
I think so too. The image I posted yesterday at 22:52, my time. Does
show the gradual darkening. The render did take an hour and a half to
complete.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/08/2018 23:39, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 8/7/2018 5:52 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> Funnily enough, I did not notice that when I read the books. ;)
>> It is PovRay's fault. It is too realistic. :)
>>
>> I think it is better to bring the shadow shields nearer the sun, for
>> the data I found.
>>
>> This last image (I promise) using Alain's settings, has a stary
>> background to show that the night part of the ring is occluding the
>> stars.
>>
>> BTW Thanks for starting the thread. It has been a distraction for me
>> when I don't feel up to starting a new project.
>>
>>
>
> Hold on. I just noticed I wasn't using the correct sizes for the shadow
> squares. And I had 40 of them instead of 20. I will need to redo them.
>
>
:)
The way of the world. :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-8-2018 9:34, Stephen wrote:
> On 08/08/2018 07:22, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 7-8-2018 14:01, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 07/08/2018 12:23, Stephen wrote:
>>>> I might try moving the shadow square radius back to the quoted
>>>> radius and adjust the length of the shadow square to get equal
>>>> day/night.
>>>
>>> As threatened. :-)
>>>
>>> Twilight is less obvious.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but I think it is looking natural from that distance. On the
>> ring, twilight would be gradual, as expected.
>>
>
> I think so too. The image I posted yesterday at 22:52, my time. Does
> show the gradual darkening. The render did take an hour and a half to
> complete.
>
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 ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Oh well.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ringworld_foggy_save_03.png' (99 KB)
Preview of image 'ringworld_foggy_save_03.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
> Oh well.
>
>
I like the image especially the shadows cast by the shadow squares in
the solar wind. :)
Unfortunately I don't have CIE.inc or lightsys.inc installed. :(
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> 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.
Yay for more Ringworld! Nice image.
I don't remember any of the details any more, but I remember spending time going
through the book for measurements and descriptions when I last tried this (some
years ago now), and I don't recall any issues like you describe. Someone
mentioned ambient in the foregoing discussion - of course, the lit areas of the
Ring would cast secondary light onto the night areas. I'm sure Niven mentioned
arch-light in place of moonlight somewhere...
And of course his maths was bad - he had to write an entire sequel novel just to
deal with the Ringworld's intrinsic instability ;-)
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/08/2018 20:31, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Yay for more Ringworld! Nice image.
>
> 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
> but I remember spending time going
> through the book for measurements and descriptions when I last tried this (some
> years ago now), and I don't recall any issues like you describe. Someone
> mentioned ambient in the foregoing discussion - of course, the lit areas of the
> Ring would cast secondary light onto the night areas. I'm sure Niven mentioned
> arch-light in place of moonlight somewhere...
>
He did, I had forgotten.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/8/2018 3:31 PM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Yay for more Ringworld! Nice image.
>
Thanks!
> I don't remember any of the details any more, but I remember spending time going
> through the book for measurements and descriptions when I last tried this (some
> years ago now), and I don't recall any issues like you describe. Someone
> mentioned ambient in the foregoing discussion - of course, the lit areas of the
> Ring would cast secondary light onto the night areas. I'm sure Niven mentioned
> arch-light in place of moonlight somewhere...
>
> And of course his maths was bad - he had to write an entire sequel novel just to
> deal with the Ringworld's intrinsic instability ;-)
>
> Bill
>
I am using the stats from Niven's website:
http://news.larryniven.net/concordance/content.asp?page=Ringworld%20Appendix#Params
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
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
4. an array of point lights in the shape of a sphere does not suffer
from the issues I'm experiencing
>> 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.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
> 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.
> 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?
>
>>> 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.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
