|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: William F Pokorny
Subject: Re: Attempt at isosurface semi-arid ground cover. (raw_wave)
Date: 24 Oct 2019 10:57:20
Message: <5db1bbd0$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/24/19 6:52 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Op 23/10/2019 om 15:38 schreef William F Pokorny:
...
>>
>> Are you able to compile personal versions of POV-Ray?
>
> I prefer to wait for a release; no hurry ;-)
:-) In that, I expect you intended to touch upon my standing quandary.
Prior to bailing on pull requests altogether, nothing of mine got into
POV-Ray proper after an initial set of 30 or so commits - and that's OK.
It just is. Nobody is being paid to deal with my pile of junk or to do
the grunt work of releases.
My recent path has been to do what I'm interested in and to provide that
code as branches so anyone interested - and compiling versions of
POV-Ray themselves - can play.
To do releases requires I commit to doing them in some fashion - that I
commit time. Against such an investment I'm looking of late at
relatively major code and structural changes to finish off the solver
stuff I've been at a long time; at a practical break with the official
POV-Ray code base.
I'm uncertain how to proceed with my hobby. This VM / pattern / built in
function stuff of late(1) is me procrastinating.
In any case, it's good you're in no hurry for a release of my recent
changes! :-)
(1) - A faster multi-object pattern capability is on my list of ideas
for additional inbuilt functions, but not one near the top. It's the
case the inside testing, upon which the object pattern is built, is
often slow.
>
>>
>> I cleaned up the scene this morning as instructive of technique even
>> without a version of POV-Ray with which to use it.
>
> I shall study this; Thank you indeed.
>
Sorry to see this morning my scrub failed to remove three pointless
declares in Jade0, FnRadialRaw and FnYYOffRaw.
The technique boils down to having raw_wave, three turbulence
specifications applied to three y plane 'sheets' and the three gradient
values to dial in how much of the turbulence fuzz the rays pick up. The
rest is normal scene stuff - at which you are more capable than me.
I'm away now for several days.
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Attempt at isosurface semi-arid ground cover. (raw_wave)
Date: 25 Oct 2019 06:57:10
Message: <5db2d506$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 24/10/2019 om 16:57 schreef William F Pokorny:
> On 10/24/19 6:52 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Op 23/10/2019 om 15:38 schreef William F Pokorny:
> ...
>>>
>>> Are you able to compile personal versions of POV-Ray?
>>
>> I prefer to wait for a release; no hurry ;-)
>
> :-) In that, I expect you intended to touch upon my standing quandary.
>
> Prior to bailing on pull requests altogether, nothing of mine got into
> POV-Ray proper after an initial set of 30 or so commits - and that's OK.
> It just is. Nobody is being paid to deal with my pile of junk or to do
> the grunt work of releases.
>
> My recent path has been to do what I'm interested in and to provide that
> code as branches so anyone interested - and compiling versions of
> POV-Ray themselves - can play.
>
> To do releases requires I commit to doing them in some fashion - that I
> commit time. Against such an investment I'm looking of late at
> relatively major code and structural changes to finish off the solver
> stuff I've been at a long time; at a practical break with the official
> POV-Ray code base.
>
> I'm uncertain how to proceed with my hobby. This VM / pattern / built in
> function stuff of late(1) is me procrastinating.
>
> In any case, it's good you're in no hurry for a release of my recent
> changes! :-)
>
> (1) - A faster multi-object pattern capability is on my list of ideas
> for additional inbuilt functions, but not one near the top. It's the
> case the inside testing, upon which the object pattern is built, is
> often slow.
>
In general I prefer to keep clear of compiling as such. It is not my
strongest point nor my primary interest. However, I hope that, one way
or another, your investigations get into the main branch somehow. I
guess there are lot of goodies worth to be offered to the simple users
at large, like me :-)
>>
>>>
>>> I cleaned up the scene this morning as instructive of technique even
>>> without a version of POV-Ray with which to use it.
>>
>> I shall study this; Thank you indeed.
>>
>
> Sorry to see this morning my scrub failed to remove three pointless
> declares in Jade0, FnRadialRaw and FnYYOffRaw.
>
> The technique boils down to having raw_wave, three turbulence
> specifications applied to three y plane 'sheets' and the three gradient
> values to dial in how much of the turbulence fuzz the rays pick up. The
> rest is normal scene stuff - at which you are more capable than me.
>
Oh well, I shall do my best. I find your basic technique interesting and
shall first investigate how using other wave forms apply.
> I'm away now for several days.
>
> Bill P.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Attempt at isosurface semi-arid ground cover. (raw_wave)
Date: 4 Nov 2019 06:51:36
Message: <5dc010c8@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I love this isosurface technique of yours!
Here is an example of my tweaking. I had to increase threshold to about
0.5 as at 0.0 nothing showed up. I replaced raw_wave by poly_wave 0.16
for the green and by sine_wave for the other two patterns. I also played
around with (scaled) warp {turbulence} instead of turbulence. And
finally, I used different values of accuracy for the different
isosurfaces. Did also a bit of work on the textures.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'wfp_groundcovertdg.png' (971 KB)
Preview of image 'wfp_groundcovertdg.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: William F Pokorny
Subject: Re: Attempt at isosurface semi-arid ground cover. (raw_wave)
Date: 4 Nov 2019 08:57:04
Message: <5dc02e30$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/4/19 6:51 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I love this isosurface technique of yours!
>
> Here is an example of my tweaking. I had to increase threshold to about
> 0.5 as at 0.0 nothing showed up. I replaced raw_wave by poly_wave 0.16
> for the green and by sine_wave for the other two patterns. I also played
> around with (scaled) warp {turbulence} instead of turbulence. And
> finally, I used different values of accuracy for the different
> isosurfaces. Did also a bit of work on the textures.
>
Ah, cool! Glad you got it to work. I'm so used to working at a threshold
of 0 for isosurfaces I didn't even think about changing it so the new
raw_wave was not needed(1).
What I intended to be dead / dried ground cover shows up much better in
your render too (your poly_wave use maybe? (2)).
Playing with accuracy is a good idea too. I didn't think to try that and
I expect it a useful 'effects knob' here like gradient.
Bill P.
(1) - The new raw_wave keyword is necessary for stuff to show up at a
threshold of 0 (to show up reliably). An implication of changing the
threshold is the 'vertical' position of everything moves with that
change, but it makes this a workable technique today.
(2) - Still on my list to introduce something like a 'function_mode'
keyword which like 'raw_wave' will allow functions to generally work
with wave modifiers. Unlike 'raw_wave,' it would continue to enable
access to all the wave modifiers - poly_wave etc. I was calling this
'function_wave,' but think now 'function_mode' a better name for what it
will do. Namely, change the behavior of wave modifications so as to be
function compatible (thinking all to a -1 to 1 range instead of 0 to 1,
but otherwise doing the same sort of wave-shaping thing they do today(3)).
(3) - On my todo list is to someday think more about how the new to 3.8
blend_mode, blend_gamma overlap (and not) with the existing pattern wave
modifiers. Carrying a question since the blend_* keywords introduced(3a)
about whether we really needed blend_gamma, but something for another day.
(3a) - ... and that blend_gamma isn't applied to the filter and transmit
channels and perhaps it should always be - or that we should use
poly_wave over blend_gamma when we want this behavior ...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Attempt at isosurface semi-arid ground cover. (raw_wave)
Date: 5 Nov 2019 02:35:55
Message: <5dc1265b$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 04/11/2019 om 14:57 schreef William F Pokorny:
> On 11/4/19 6:51 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> I love this isosurface technique of yours!
>>
>> Here is an example of my tweaking. I had to increase threshold to
>> about 0.5 as at 0.0 nothing showed up. I replaced raw_wave by
>> poly_wave 0.16 for the green and by sine_wave for the other two
>> patterns. I also played around with (scaled) warp {turbulence} instead
>> of turbulence. And finally, I used different values of accuracy for
>> the different isosurfaces. Did also a bit of work on the textures.
>>
>
> Ah, cool! Glad you got it to work. I'm so used to working at a threshold
> of 0 for isosurfaces I didn't even think about changing it so the new
> raw_wave was not needed(1).
>
> What I intended to be dead / dried ground cover shows up much better in
> your render too (your poly_wave use maybe? (2)).
>
> Playing with accuracy is a good idea too. I didn't think to try that and
> I expect it a useful 'effects knob' here like gradient.
>
The dried, sandy ground is a bit more contrasting thanks to tweaked
textures, while using sine_wave. the used accuracy is 0.005 and 0.0005
respectively for these two isosurfaces. In contrast, the vegetation uses
poly_wave, a scale-dependent warp turbulence, and a still smaller
accuracy (0.00005).
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Attempt at isosurface semi-arid ground cover. (raw_wave)
Date: 12 Nov 2019 07:23:03
Message: <5dcaa427@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just for the fun of it, I added radiosity.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'wfp_groundcovertdg.png' (855 KB)
Preview of image 'wfp_groundcovertdg.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: William F Pokorny
Subject: Re: Attempt at isosurface semi-arid ground cover. (raw_wave)
Date: 13 Nov 2019 07:46:00
Message: <5dcbfb08@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/12/19 7:23 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Just for the fun of it, I added radiosity.
>
Neat! Looks good.
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Just for the fun of it, I added radiosity.
>
> --
> Thomas
The original looks good but it looks even better with radiosity.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Attempt at isosurface semi-arid ground cover. (raw_wave)
Date: 22 Nov 2019 06:35:48
Message: <5dd7c814@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 12/11/2019 om 13:23 schreef Thomas de Groot:
> Just for the fun of it, I added radiosity.
>
Indeed. More could be done I am sure with some more smart work on the
individual textures. If I find the time... ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Attempt at isosurface semi-arid ground cover. (raw_wave)
Date: 22 Nov 2019 06:36:40
Message: <5dd7c848$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 22/11/2019 om 10:31 schreef s.day:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Just for the fun of it, I added radiosity.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
>
> The original looks good but it looks even better with radiosity.
>
Indeed. More could be done I am sure with some more smart work on the
individual textures. If I find the time...
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |