Op 29/09/2020 om 23:18 schreef Bill Pragnell:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Basically, the checkered fields are superimposed as a slope texture,
>> taking into account a b&w diamond pattern image_map. In the original,
>> the pattern was straight but I thought it would be more convincing if
>> that were changed to a more wavy pattern.
> 
> It's very effective. Looking closely, one can see the checker-like pattern, but
> the wider view is quite natural. I've used a similar technique in the past for
> placing objects - using a version of a texture specifically designed for
> filtering a random field of items.
> 
> My previous attempt at field boundaries was a random point graph, which
> unfortunately required an external program - both for speed and sanity, since
> SDL is quite unsuited to that sort of thing. I never got as far as making the
> actual field colours, just the boundary walls (see attached). Sadly, as with so
> many projects, real life distracted me in some way and it fell by the wayside...
> 
> Bill
> 

Yes indeed, this works quite well. You should try to take that up again. 
For my part, I have used ChrisB's Blockwall macro in my Islay scene 
(unfinished) a couple of years ago to a similar effect. That seemed to 
me rather promising although the macro also had a couple of quaint 
peculiarities, and it would be unsuitable I guess for a whole landscape. 
Interesting topics to explore...

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Op 29/09/2020 om 17:56 schreef Jim Henderson:
> Really nice - I love the clouds in particular. :)
>

Thanks Jim. Those clouds seem to appeal to a majority it seems ;-) I 
guess this is partly because they are almost at eye level which makes 
them more dramatic.

I failed to mention earlier that the high, thin, clouds in the sky were 
produced by Zeger Knaepen's FastClouds macro. Some dramatic lighting 
effect /under/ the clouds is the result of just two properly adjusted 
fog codes...

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Another nice landscape from Thomas! :-)
You seem to have used quite a lot of tricks in this one, in a very successful
manner. Well done!

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Op 29/09/2020 om 17:56 schreef Jim Henderson:
> > Really nice - I love the clouds in particular. :)
> >
>
> Thanks Jim. Those clouds seem to appeal to a majority it seems ;-) I
> guess this is partly because they are almost at eye level which makes
> them more dramatic.
>
> I failed to mention earlier that the high, thin, clouds in the sky were
> produced by Zeger Knaepen's FastClouds macro. Some dramatic lighting
> effect /under/ the clouds is the result of just two properly adjusted
> fog codes...
>
> --
> Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Op 30/09/2020 om 15:04 schreef BayashiPascal:
> Another nice landscape from Thomas! :-)
> You seem to have used quite a lot of tricks in this one, in a very successful
> manner. Well done!
> 

Thank you! And I am not finished it appears. More tricks to come. It is 
the advantage of increasing hindsight with the number of individual 
POV-Ray user years. The number of interesting tricks published in these 
groups increases. Believe it or not, at this moment I have a collection 
of tricks and such from 241 individual users! Many with more than one 
trick. :-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Believe it or not, at this moment I have a collection
> of tricks and such from 241 individual users! Many with more than one
> trick. :-)

That would be a very interesting read, if presented in a single document... ;)

Post a reply to this message

Op 01/10/2020 om 09:38 schreef Bill Pragnell:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Believe it or not, at this moment I have a collection
>> of tricks and such from 241 individual users! Many with more than one
>> trick. :-)
> 
> That would be a very interesting read, if presented in a single document... ;)
> 

If I can find the time... ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> > Believe it or not, at this moment I have a collection
> > of tricks and such from 241 individual users! Many with more than one
> > trick. :-)
>
> That would be a very interesting read, if presented in a single document... ;)

I 2nd that; Thomas may have the best collection of tips and tricks that exists,
judging from his always-nice renders and comments!

I used to have such a collection-- far less in number than Thomas's-- but it was
on an older hard drive that failed, and I haven't yet found my back-up copy (if
indeed I made one.) :-(  I have a tendency to write detailed notes and tips IN
my scenes, so at least I have those to refer to...but they are usually
scene-specific, not general.

Post a reply to this message

"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> This came out well - the perspective / viewpoint works very well.
>
> It looks very different between my 2 monitors.  I'm not sure how to
> independently change the screen colors/gamma on my laptop but leave the
> auxiliary monitor as it is.

I have a similar problem, which might be related to yours(?)

Three or four years ago, my trusty old cathode-ray-tube monitor died, and I
bought a typical inexpensive LED 'TV' monitor as a replacement (a Vizio model.)
There was a decided color shift (or specific-color 'enhancement') that I still
have not figured out or corrected, at least with the TV's basic color controls.
I've simply gotten used to it by now, sad to say.

But I raised this problem in the newsgroups years ago, and Clipka mentioned that
my new monitor (or my computer) may not have the correct 'ICC color profile'
installed. I neglected to follow up on that advice-- it was rather technical--
and now I don't remember where the newsgroup posts are, or the date.

So your problem may likewise be related to an incorrect or mis-matched color
profile somewhere. Just a guess, though.

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>
> Three or four years ago, my trusty old cathode-ray-tube monitor died, and I
> bought a typical inexpensive LED 'TV' monitor as a replacement...

It was actually about 7 years ago, now that I recall-- which might give both of
us a better chance of finding the comments by Clipka.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 08:46:20 +0200, Thomas de Groot wrote:

> Op 29/09/2020 om 17:56 schreef Jim Henderson:
>> Really nice - I love the clouds in particular. :)
>>
>>
> Thanks Jim. Those clouds seem to appeal to a majority it seems ;-) I
> guess this is partly because they are almost at eye level which makes
> them more dramatic.

Possibly - for me, it's also the texture itself, it just feels like a 
cloud.  :)

> I failed to mention earlier that the high, thin, clouds in the sky were
> produced by Zeger Knaepen's FastClouds macro. Some dramatic lighting
> effect /under/ the clouds is the result of just two properly adjusted
> fog codes...

Very nice.

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

Op 01/10/2020 om 22:10 schreef Kenneth:
> "Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>> Believe it or not, at this moment I have a collection
>>> of tricks and such from 241 individual users! Many with more than one
>>> trick. :-)
>>
>> That would be a very interesting read, if presented in a single document... ;)
> 
> I 2nd that; Thomas may have the best collection of tips and tricks that exists,
> judging from his always-nice renders and comments!
> 
> I used to have such a collection-- far less in number than Thomas's-- but it was
> on an older hard drive that failed, and I haven't yet found my back-up copy (if
> indeed I made one.) :-(  I have a tendency to write detailed notes and tips IN
> my scenes, so at least I have those to refer to...but they are usually
> scene-specific, not general.
> 

Naaahh.... putting me under duress, are you? ;-)

As a matter of facts, I have been playing for a long time with the idea 
of "publishing" all that stuff some way or another. I am aware that when 
I shall come to disappear, all that stuff will be "lost". I need to do 
something about it, if only because I feel an obligation to the 
community who provided me with it. Additionally, I may discover use for 
the many items I never included in my scenes. A majority most probably.

You have got my attention gentlemen.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
I have been playing for a long time with the idea
> of "publishing" all that stuff some way or another. I am aware that when
> I shall come to disappear, all that stuff will be "lost". I need to do
> something about it, if only because I feel an obligation to the
> community who provided me with it. Additionally, I may discover use for
> the many items I never included in my scenes. A majority most probably.
>
> You have got my attention gentlemen.

I'd say that a good step 1 would be to get everything into one folder and make
an index file with all of the filenames (with an eye toward making it HTML).

Then you can start with the minimum needed to make it "useable" - under each
filename, you can put author, date/version, link to original post if you know
it, and any notes or comments that you might have.   Mention scenes that you've
used it in.  Perhaps while you're doing this, think of a grouping scheme or tags
for the files: plants, buildings, people, clouds, water....

That way you can sort of skim through it and hit the highlights, which are
likely the most interesting/useful items in the collection.

That sets it up for posting to a file hosting site, and folks can download it,
look it over, and discuss some of the files - then it kinda takes on a life of
its own and people can find missing information, divine the purpose of code that
you're not sure of, catch bugs, make edits for clarity and efficiency, etc.
Many hands make light work.

Many things might be a wonderful addition to the Insert Menu.

Post a reply to this message

Am 28.09.2020 um 12:19 schrieb jr:
> hi,
> 
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> ... thinking about a background landscape. ...
> 
> fully agree with PG regarding landscape and colours.  not too far off views seen
> in the Eifel.  lovely.
> 
> 
> regards, jr.
> 
What part of the Eifel do you have in your mind? I admit that I never 
visited the western parts (high fens) but only the High Eifel, the 
Volcanic Eifel, Mayen and the Maria Laach Abbey and very often the 
valley of the Ahr where my wife is born at the village Rech. But in all 
the now 40 years I visit the Eifel I never noticed this kind of 
landscape there.

@Thomas: A very interessting approach in using billboards trees. May be 
there are some litte technical difficulties (the missing shadows of the 
stems), which can be solved. But the generell idea is great.

For my actuall scene I played with the trial version of Xfrog and 
generated different plant models where you dont need a Billboard fake. I 
tried to get a licence (the actual sale-offer of 99 US-Bucks is really a 
bargain for this elobarated software) but have not received a license 
code so far after more than a week of payment. So may be I have to 
cancel this order and be content with my models of Pinus pinaster, typha 
latifolia, a rottenn version of their tutorial to Solidago canadensis 
and the common broom I modelled during the trial periode.

Best regards
Michael

Post a reply to this message

Op 02/10/2020 om 18:10 schreef MichaelJF:
> @Thomas: A very interessting approach in using billboards trees. May be 
> there are some litte technical difficulties (the missing shadows of the 
> stems), which can be solved. But the generell idea is great.

I don't remember where I got the idea; it certainly was not an original 
one ;-) I have used it now in a number of scenes, also with a gradation 
to "real" trees more in the foreground. The shadow problem with the Sun 
more on edge to the billboards came along rather naturally and the 
solution was almost obvious.

> 
> For my actuall scene I played with the trial version of Xfrog and 
> generated different plant models where you dont need a Billboard fake. I 
> tried to get a licence (the actual sale-offer of 99 US-Bucks is really a 
> bargain for this elobarated software) but have not received a license 
> code so far after more than a week of payment. So may be I have to 
> cancel this order and be content with my models of Pinus pinaster, typha 
> latifolia, a rottenn version of their tutorial to Solidago canadensis 
> and the common broom I modelled during the trial periode.
> 

Xfrog is considered one of the top plant-generating software. I have not 
considered (yet) to buy it. My need is not that great. However, before 
cancelling, have you tried to contact them?

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Op 02/10/2020 om 01:57 schreef Jim Henderson:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 08:46:20 +0200, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> 
>> Op 29/09/2020 om 17:56 schreef Jim Henderson:
>>> Really nice - I love the clouds in particular. :)
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks Jim. Those clouds seem to appeal to a majority it seems ;-) I
>> guess this is partly because they are almost at eye level which makes
>> them more dramatic.
> 
> Possibly - for me, it's also the texture itself, it just feels like a
> cloud.  :)

All praise should go to Mick who put them together in the first place 
(in 2004).

> 
>> I failed to mention earlier that the high, thin, clouds in the sky were
>> produced by Zeger Knaepen's FastClouds macro. Some dramatic lighting
>> effect /under/ the clouds is the result of just two properly adjusted
>> fog codes...
> 
> Very nice.
> 

There is a further trick concerning media clouds that I am willing to 
share ;-)

I (almost) always use CIE.inc, part of the Lightsys IV family of macros 
provided by Jaime Vives Piqueres. I almost always increase the intensity 
of the Sunlight by a couple of factors. A consequence of this is that 
media clouds may come out too overexposed as it were. A ready solution 
to this problem is to put a copy of the Sun, with lower intensity, 
together with the clouds media, in a separate light_group{}. See: 
http://wiki.povray.org/content/Reference:Light_Group

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

hi,

"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> I have been playing for a long time with the idea
> > of "publishing" all that stuff some way or another. I am aware that when
> > I shall come to disappear, all that stuff will be "lost". I need to do
> > something about it, if only because I feel an obligation to the
> > community who provided me with it. Additionally, I may discover use for
> > the many items I never included in my scenes. A majority most probably.
> >
> > You have got my attention gentlemen.
>
> I'd say that a good step 1 would be to get everything into one folder and make
> an index file with all of the filenames (with an eye toward making it HTML).
>
> Then you can start with the minimum needed to make it "useable" - under each
> filename, you can put author, date/version, link to original post if you know
> it, and any notes or comments that you might have.   Mention scenes that you've
> used it in.  Perhaps while you're doing this, think of a grouping scheme or tags
> for the files: plants, buildings, people, clouds, water....
>
> That way you can sort of skim through it and hit the highlights, which are
> likely the most interesting/useful items in the collection.
>
> That sets it up for posting to a file hosting site, and folks can download it,
> ...

minor quibble.  I think the wiki a better place.  (or at least in addition to)


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

hi,

MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> Am 28.09.2020 um 12:19 schrieb jr:
> > Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> >> ... thinking about a background landscape. ...
> > fully agree with PG regarding landscape and colours.  not too far off views seen
> > in the Eifel.  lovely.
> >
> What part of the Eifel do you have in your mind? I admit that I never
> visited the western parts (high fens) but only the High Eifel, the
> Volcanic Eifel, Mayen and the Maria Laach Abbey and very often the
> valley of the Ahr where my wife is born at the village Rech. But in all
> the now 40 years I visit the Eifel I never noticed this kind of
> landscape there.

funnily enough, from admittedly v dim memories (40+ years), I was thinking of
the Mayen towards Nürburg/Monschau area.  but yeah, maybe .. misty-eyed.  :-)


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Am 03.10.2020 um 11:19 schrieb jr:
> hi,
> 
> MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
>> Am 28.09.2020 um 12:19 schrieb jr:
>>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>>> ... thinking about a background landscape. ...
>>> fully agree with PG regarding landscape and colours.  not too far off views seen
>>> in the Eifel.  lovely.
>>>
>> What part of the Eifel do you have in your mind? I admit that I never
>> visited the western parts (high fens) but only the High Eifel, the
>> Volcanic Eifel, Mayen and the Maria Laach Abbey and very often the
>> valley of the Ahr where my wife is born at the village Rech. But in all
>> the now 40 years I visit the Eifel I never noticed this kind of
>> landscape there.
> 
> funnily enough, from admittedly v dim memories (40+ years), I was thinking of
> the Mayen towards Nürburg/Monschau area.  but yeah, maybe .. misty-eyed.  :-)
> 
> 
> regards, jr.
> 
No, your memory may be correct. May be they changed the use of the land 
in the mean time. I cannot remember such great areas of single trees 
there. But it was 20 years ago that I visited the Mayen/Adenau area more 
often and not forty. I remember the landscape there a bit, because I 
remember more the streets there. They were very well suited for 
motor-biking.

Best regards
Michael

Post a reply to this message

> 
> Xfrog is considered one of the top plant-generating software. I have not 
> considered (yet) to buy it. My need is not that great. However, before 
> cancelling, have you tried to contact them?
> 

Yes of course I tried to contact them several times, but I yielded only 
automated answers. something like this:

Your request (26497) has been received and is being reviewed by our 
support staff.

To add additional comments, reply to this email.

I fear no one is on board at the moment (corona?). Of course Xfrog is 
the top plant-generating software and 99 US-Bucks is a bargain really. 
One has to invest aome time to understand their approach and work 
through their tutorial. They seem to have a problem with close ups of 
flowers. The blossom of an orchid seems to be impossible, but may be  I 
overlooked some options.

Best regards
Michael

Post a reply to this message

Op 02/10/2020 om 12:36 schreef Bald Eagle:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> I have been playing for a long time with the idea
>> of "publishing" all that stuff some way or another. I am aware that when
>> I shall come to disappear, all that stuff will be "lost". I need to do
>> something about it, if only because I feel an obligation to the
>> community who provided me with it. Additionally, I may discover use for
>> the many items I never included in my scenes. A majority most probably.
>>
>> You have got my attention gentlemen.
> 
> I'd say that a good step 1 would be to get everything into one folder and make
> an index file with all of the filenames (with an eye toward making it HTML).
> 
> Then you can start with the minimum needed to make it "useable" - under each
> filename, you can put author, date/version, link to original post if you know
> it, and any notes or comments that you might have.   Mention scenes that you've
> used it in.  Perhaps while you're doing this, think of a grouping scheme or tags
> for the files: plants, buildings, people, clouds, water....
> 
> That way you can sort of skim through it and hit the highlights, which are
> likely the most interesting/useful items in the collection.
> 
> That sets it up for posting to a file hosting site, and folks can download it,
> look it over, and discuss some of the files - then it kinda takes on a life of
> its own and people can find missing information, divine the purpose of code that
> you're not sure of, catch bugs, make edits for clarity and efficiency, etc.
> Many hands make light work.
> 
> Many things might be a wonderful addition to the Insert Menu.
> 

In fact, I have something like this already. Everything is inside one 
single folder, subdivided into sub-folders (authors), and 
sub-sub-folders (include/macro groups). I have an index in the form of a 
spreadsheet. Unfortunately, I have not updated it since 2012, but the 
bulk is there already probably. I urgently need to check the whole thing 
out.

I was thinking also of an eventual HTML version. I have a little 
experience with building HTML pages through the work for the TC-RTC, but 
this would be a major project indeed.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

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

> I was thinking also of an eventual HTML version. I have a little
> experience with building HTML pages through the work for the TC-RTC, but
> this would be a major project indeed.

Not at all.
Sounds to me like you have virtually everything you need already.
In the same way that you might #write a concat () command to a file with
POV-Ray, you can construct/format a line of HTML in your spreadsheet.

Then you just copy/paste into a .htm file and you're pretty much done.

I did this with converting .stl to mesh and .svg to bezier splines.  (My
understanding is that that's how Cousin Ricky converts his svg as well.)

Post a reply to this message

Op 04/10/2020 om 16:21 schreef Bald Eagle:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> 
>> I was thinking also of an eventual HTML version. I have a little
>> experience with building HTML pages through the work for the TC-RTC, but
>> this would be a major project indeed.
> 
> Not at all.
> Sounds to me like you have virtually everything you need already.
> In the same way that you might #write a concat () command to a file with
> POV-Ray, you can construct/format a line of HTML in your spreadsheet.
> 

Right. I was indeed aware of that.

> Then you just copy/paste into a .htm file and you're pretty much done.
> 
> I did this with converting .stl to mesh and .svg to bezier splines.  (My
> understanding is that that's how Cousin Ricky converts his svg as well.)
> 

Ok. Good to know. Thanks a lot for this info. I shall have to explore 
this obviously. Don't hold your breath though: much to do besides and 
before, but I shall get there.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

I found the perfect bird for your scene.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'xlarge (10).jpeg.jpg' (90 KB)

Preview of image 'xlarge (10).jpeg.jpg'

On Sat, 03 Oct 2020 08:58:30 +0200, Thomas de Groot wrote:

> Op 02/10/2020 om 01:57 schreef Jim Henderson:
>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 08:46:20 +0200, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> 
>>> Op 29/09/2020 om 17:56 schreef Jim Henderson:
>>>> Really nice - I love the clouds in particular. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Thanks Jim. Those clouds seem to appeal to a majority it seems ;-) I
>>> guess this is partly because they are almost at eye level which makes
>>> them more dramatic.
>> 
>> Possibly - for me, it's also the texture itself, it just feels like a
>> cloud.  :)
> 
> All praise should go to Mick who put them together in the first place
> (in 2004).

:)

I would say that the tool is worthy, but good tools can be used poorly, 
and you've definitely NOT done that. :D

>>> I failed to mention earlier that the high, thin, clouds in the sky
>>> were produced by Zeger Knaepen's FastClouds macro. Some dramatic
>>> lighting effect /under/ the clouds is the result of just two properly
>>> adjusted fog codes...
>> 
>> Very nice.
>> 
>> 
> There is a further trick concerning media clouds that I am willing to
> share ;-)
> 
> I (almost) always use CIE.inc, part of the Lightsys IV family of macros
> provided by Jaime Vives Piqueres. I almost always increase the intensity
> of the Sunlight by a couple of factors. A consequence of this is that
> media clouds may come out too overexposed as it were. A ready solution
> to this problem is to put a copy of the Sun, with lower intensity,
> together with the clouds media, in a separate light_group{}. See:
> http://wiki.povray.org/content/Reference:Light_Group

Very useful, thanks for sharing that :)



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

Op 05/10/2020 om 19:54 schreef Bald Eagle:
> I found the perfect bird for your scene.
> 

LOL! Absolutely! Thanks for the reminder: birds will be one of the last 
decisions when all else will be done on this scene.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

in news:5f72f3d2$1@news.povray.org Thomas de Groot wrote:

> Living 
> in a country that is a bit too crowded for my taste

Hier in't Oosten is't ook wel rustiger,

Ingo

Post a reply to this message

Op 13/10/2020 om 12:04 schreef ingo:
> in news:5f72f3d2$1@news.povray.org Thomas de Groot wrote:
> 
>> Living
>> in a country that is a bit too crowded for my taste
> 
> Hier in't Oosten is't ook wel rustiger,
> 
> Ingo
> 

[switch En/Nl...klang!]

Inderdaad. Dat was ook een van mijn kandidaten na een Randstad leven...

Tussen haakjes: bedankt voor Meshmaker! Ik kom daar zo dadelijk op terug 
hieronder.

[switch Nl/En...klang!]

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Please find here the (last) version of the scene. Search for the 
differences ;-)

One notable change I want to elaborate on a bit. I dumped Gilles Tran's 
MakeGrass and replaced it by Lawnmaker from Uwe Gleiss (2004). 
Unfortunately, his website from where it was downloaded does not exist 
anymore. Interestingly, the grass blades were made of parametric objects 
and I remembered the infinite time it took to render a proper scene, so 
I never used it. William Pokorny's discovery about the optimal settings 
for parametric objects, made me curious of course and, Lo! Lawnmaker 
suddenly became a serious candidate. Not stopping there, and interested 
as I am in using mesh2{} files, I decided to experiment with Meshmaker 
(thanks Ingo!). With the help of an example file by Friedrich 
Lohmueller, I made the conversion within a couple of minutes. Taking 
into account the size of the grasspatches and their grass blade density 
(which can increase parsing time quite rapidly) a typical lawn renders 
very fast, hardly slower than the rest of the scene.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'pending storm_10_final2.jpg' (346 KB)

Preview of image 'pending storm_10_final2.jpg'

Le 2020-10-14 à 03:02, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> Please find here the (last) version of the scene. Search for the 
> differences ;-)
> 
> One notable change I want to elaborate on a bit. I dumped Gilles Tran's 
> MakeGrass and replaced it by Lawnmaker from Uwe Gleiss (2004). 
> Unfortunately, his website from where it was downloaded does not exist 
> anymore. Interestingly, the grass blades were made of parametric objects 
> and I remembered the infinite time it took to render a proper scene, so 
> I never used it. William Pokorny's discovery about the optimal settings 
> for parametric objects, made me curious of course and, Lo! Lawnmaker 
> suddenly became a serious candidate. Not stopping there, and interested 
> as I am in using mesh2{} files, I decided to experiment with Meshmaker 
> (thanks Ingo!). With the help of an example file by Friedrich 
> Lohmueller, I made the conversion within a couple of minutes. Taking 
> into account the size of the grasspatches and their grass blade density 
> (which can increase parsing time quite rapidly) a typical lawn renders 
> very fast, hardly slower than the rest of the scene.
> 

That grass is MUCH better than the original.

Post a reply to this message

Op 14/10/2020 om 20:46 schreef Alain Martel:
> 
> That grass is MUCH better than the original.

Absolutely. In the past I was rather pleased with MakeGrass but lately I 
had trouble to get what I wanted. Lawnmaker is also easier to control 
and to implement further if need arises (which I shall certainly explore).

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Please find here the (last) version of the scene. Search for the
> differences ;-)
>

Even more beautiful than your original render.

I see that the trees have been fattened-up a bit; and one of the rusty metal
fence-bars has been broken and bent (a nice touch.) It also looks like the
castle or church has been thrown into more shadow (or maybe with less fill
light), which nicely matches the late afternoon Sun. The stones under the fence
seem to have changed too.

I do like the detailed grass, but my personal preference is for the previous
'mossy' appearance; it just seems to go better with the overall 'look' of the
scene-- maybe because, with its 'lack of detail', it offsets the more-detailed
valley and trees. And it more clearly shows the shadow of the out-of-frame tree
that is cast across the lawn.

I like *both* versions of the fence stones; I think I prefer the previous
stones' textures, but the new stones' shapes. A difficult decision!

It's easy to be an amateur art critic, ha :-P

You have used so *many* interesting code tools for this scene, tools that I have
not even started experimenting with yet. Thanks for the detailed descriptions of
your techniques.

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Please find here the (last) version of the scene. Search for the
> differences ;-)
>
> One notable change I want to elaborate on a bit. I dumped Gilles Tran's
> MakeGrass and replaced it by Lawnmaker from Uwe Gleiss (2004).
> Unfortunately, his website from where it was downloaded does not exist
> anymore. Interestingly, the grass blades were made of parametric objects
> and I remembered the infinite time it took to render a proper scene, so
> I never used it. William Pokorny's discovery about the optimal settings
> for parametric objects, made me curious of course and, Lo! Lawnmaker
> suddenly became a serious candidate. Not stopping there, and interested
> as I am in using mesh2{} files, I decided to experiment with Meshmaker
> (thanks Ingo!). With the help of an example file by Friedrich
> Lohmueller, I made the conversion within a couple of minutes. Taking
> into account the size of the grasspatches and their grass blade density
> (which can increase parsing time quite rapidly) a typical lawn renders
> very fast, hardly slower than the rest of the scene.
>
> --
> Thomas

Hi sorry, is it too late to give suggestions? The potential of this image is big
!  My first and only remark if too late is that there would me a more immersive
feeling if silhouette of the castle had more bumpy details for slabs. That would
be a lot of work (maybe less for an HG POV displacement). So I hold my tong for
the other possible areas to work on and really appologize if it's too late, I
enjoy the meteorological effect of clouds falling down to rain a lot, and the
slopes of distant hills , and the grain on the rusty metal bar and the position
of wooden ramp to compose image into depth.

Post a reply to this message

You've definitely made some noticeable improvements on the left side.

On the right ...   it all seems to have faded into a lack of definition.
The clouds and the land ooze together into a brown cloud - I would have expected
some greater contrast, and a darker, almost black color.   Something to add
WEIGHT and authoritatively announce the arrival of a STORM, and make you _feel_
it.

You have sunlight shining on the trees, but no highlights.
An effect of the light group?

The little buildings also seem to have disappeared into the beige cloud.
Are they no longer lit as well?

It's still kicking butt, and I like both versions of the grass.

That all of it is parametric, with a conversion to mesh2{} is pretty exciting as
well.   Maybe a tiny example scene showing how all of that is implemented, along
with the needed files in a zip would prod other folks into taking a crack at
some renders of their own   ;)

Post a reply to this message

Op 15/10/2020 om 22:38 schreef Bald Eagle:
> You've definitely made some noticeable improvements on the left side.
> 
> On the right ...   it all seems to have faded into a lack of definition.
> The clouds and the land ooze together into a brown cloud - I would have expected
> some greater contrast, and a darker, almost black color.   Something to add
> WEIGHT and authoritatively announce the arrival of a STORM, and make you _feel_
> it.

Well, It may not be rain... maybe a dust storm. I understand what you 
mean but I believe I am leaving things as they are now. Maybe something 
for an update in ten years time :-)

> 
> You have sunlight shining on the trees, but no highlights.
> An effect of the light group?

No. This is something I am going to look into in my next scene which 
will be on ground level, without the castle. It probably results from 
the billboard settings and or gamma maybe.

> 
> The little buildings also seem to have disappeared into the beige cloud.
> Are they no longer lit as well?

No, they are there at the same place. What has been changed are the 
textures.

> 
> It's still kicking butt, and I like both versions of the grass.

I prefer this one .

> 
> That all of it is parametric, with a conversion to mesh2{} is pretty exciting as
> well.   Maybe a tiny example scene showing how all of that is implemented, along
> with the needed files in a zip would prod other folks into taking a crack at
> some renders of their own   ;)
> 

Excellent idea. I need to note it as todo before I forget or before RL 
kicks me over.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Op 15/10/2020 om 21:18 schreef Mr:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Please find here the (last) version of the scene. Search for the
>> differences ;-)
>>
>> One notable change I want to elaborate on a bit. I dumped Gilles Tran's
>> MakeGrass and replaced it by Lawnmaker from Uwe Gleiss (2004).
>> Unfortunately, his website from where it was downloaded does not exist
>> anymore. Interestingly, the grass blades were made of parametric objects
>> and I remembered the infinite time it took to render a proper scene, so
>> I never used it. William Pokorny's discovery about the optimal settings
>> for parametric objects, made me curious of course and, Lo! Lawnmaker
>> suddenly became a serious candidate. Not stopping there, and interested
>> as I am in using mesh2{} files, I decided to experiment with Meshmaker
>> (thanks Ingo!). With the help of an example file by Friedrich
>> Lohmueller, I made the conversion within a couple of minutes. Taking
>> into account the size of the grasspatches and their grass blade density
>> (which can increase parsing time quite rapidly) a typical lawn renders
>> very fast, hardly slower than the rest of the scene.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
> 
> Hi sorry, is it too late to give suggestions? The potential of this image is big
> !  My first and only remark if too late is that there would me a more immersive
> feeling if silhouette of the castle had more bumpy details for slabs. That would
> be a lot of work (maybe less for an HG POV displacement). So I hold my tong for
> the other possible areas to work on and really appologize if it's too late, I
> enjoy the meteorological effect of clouds falling down to rain a lot, and the
> slopes of distant hills , and the grain on the rusty metal bar and the position
> of wooden ramp to compose image into depth.
> 
> 

Never too late for suggestions; if I am going to do something with them 
is another matter. ;-)

For those parts of the castle which show a definite shadow in the Sun 
(the tower) I used the displacement feature in Poseray. This is tricky 
business because you can easily overdo it and the effect becomes worse. 
So, the roof tiles and the stones in the wall were subtly displaced. The 
shadowy wall were not displaced though. Overall, I applied a proximity 
pattern to make the wall texture more interesting.

There are always more features to work upon in such a scene. I have a 
couple of items myself. However, before I get bored I prefer to stop now 
and maybe take up the work later (or never). Perfection is not my cup of 
tea. :-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Op 15/10/2020 om 09:26 schreef Kenneth:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Please find here the (last) version of the scene. Search for the
>> differences ;-)
>>
> 
> Even more beautiful than your original render.
> 
> I see that the trees have been fattened-up a bit; and one of the rusty metal
> fence-bars has been broken and bent (a nice touch.) It also looks like the
> castle or church has been thrown into more shadow (or maybe with less fill
> light), which nicely matches the late afternoon Sun. The stones under the fence
> seem to have changed too.

Different changes here: besides fattening up of the trees, I threw in a 
second one and both are randomly selected. the castle walls have an 
added proximity pattern to the texture (the Edouard Poor variant). It 
makes them less "clean". New stones under the fence indeed, and I kicked 
the metal bars into shape in some places, breaking it at one place (sorry).

> 
> I do like the detailed grass, but my personal preference is for the previous
> 'mossy' appearance; it just seems to go better with the overall 'look' of the
> scene-- maybe because, with its 'lack of detail', it offsets the more-detailed
> valley and trees. And it more clearly shows the shadow of the out-of-frame tree
> that is cast across the lawn.
> 
> I like *both* versions of the fence stones; I think I prefer the previous
> stones' textures, but the new stones' shapes. A difficult decision!

Ha! Here the supremely powerful might of the author comes into play. I 
shall leave it as-is.

> 
> It's easy to be an amateur art critic, ha :-P

Sure! Which is nonetheless fully appreciated as it often points directly 
to sore places which need treatment.

> 
> You have used so *many* interesting code tools for this scene, tools that I have
> not even started experimenting with yet. Thanks for the detailed descriptions of
> your techniques.
> 

You are most welcome. I need to do something about all this. I have made 
a small start into preparing all the stuff for more general use. I met a 
lot of loose ends and inconsistencies already so, that is going to take 
some time...


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Op 15/10/2020 om 22:38 schreef Bald Eagle:
> >
> > You have sunlight shining on the trees, but no highlights.
> > An effect of the light group?
>
> No. This is something I am going to look into in my next scene which
> will be on ground level, without the castle. It probably results from
> the billboard settings and or gamma maybe.
>

An idea off the top of my head: Instead of a flat billboard, you could make a
simple low-rez height_field for the tree (including the trunk too, possibly).
Perhaps 2 or 3 different ones, for variation. (Pre-#declare each HF so that it
doesn't take up 'extra' memory when used repeatedly.) Then the trees would show
some highlights, using phong or whatever.

Since your current billboard scheme has the trees always facing the camera, the
same scheme would be used for the HF 'shells'-- the 'rear' or underside of the
HFs would never be seen.

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> An idea off the top of my head: Instead of a flat billboard, you could make a
> simple low-rez height_field for the tree (including the trunk too, possibly).

Hmmm.
If a heightfield is just a displacement based on the grayscale value of the
image pixels, then you could also make an isosurface of it, and abs() should
mirror the
displacement in both directions.
Then I think there's the isosurface approximation macros that could make a
mesh{} of _that_, and then you could possibly make a whole 3D tree from just the
image.
Alternatively, I guess you could just intersect{} it with a box and texture it
with the image_map and see how that turns out...

Just thinking out loud..

Post a reply to this message

Le 2020-10-16 à 02:42, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> Op 15/10/2020 om 21:18 schreef Mr:
>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>> Please find here the (last) version of the scene. Search for the
>>> differences ;-)
>>>
>>> One notable change I want to elaborate on a bit. I dumped Gilles Tran's
>>> MakeGrass and replaced it by Lawnmaker from Uwe Gleiss (2004).
>>> Unfortunately, his website from where it was downloaded does not exist
>>> anymore. Interestingly, the grass blades were made of parametric objects
>>> and I remembered the infinite time it took to render a proper scene, so
>>> I never used it. William Pokorny's discovery about the optimal settings
>>> for parametric objects, made me curious of course and, Lo! Lawnmaker
>>> suddenly became a serious candidate. Not stopping there, and interested
>>> as I am in using mesh2{} files, I decided to experiment with Meshmaker
>>> (thanks Ingo!). With the help of an example file by Friedrich
>>> Lohmueller, I made the conversion within a couple of minutes. Taking
>>> into account the size of the grasspatches and their grass blade density
>>> (which can increase parsing time quite rapidly) a typical lawn renders
>>> very fast, hardly slower than the rest of the scene.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Thomas
>>
>> Hi sorry, is it too late to give suggestions? The potential of this 
>> image is big
>> !  My first and only remark if too late is that there would me a more 
>> immersive
>> feeling if silhouette of the castle had more bumpy details for slabs. 
>> That would
>> be a lot of work (maybe less for an HG POV displacement). So I hold my 
>> tong for
>> the other possible areas to work on and really appologize if it's too 
>> late, I
>> enjoy the meteorological effect of clouds falling down to rain a lot, 
>> and the
>> slopes of distant hills , and the grain on the rusty metal bar and the 
>> position
>> of wooden ramp to compose image into depth.
>>
>>
> 
> Never too late for suggestions; if I am going to do something with them 
> is another matter. ;-)
> 

Maybe not for this one, but for your next master piece 😉

Post a reply to this message

Op 16/10/2020 om 22:42 schreef Bald Eagle:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> An idea off the top of my head: Instead of a flat billboard, you could make a
>> simple low-rez height_field for the tree (including the trunk too, possibly).
> 
> Hmmm.
> If a heightfield is just a displacement based on the grayscale value of the
> image pixels, then you could also make an isosurface of it, and abs() should
> mirror the
> displacement in both directions.
> Then I think there's the isosurface approximation macros that could make a
> mesh{} of _that_, and then you could possibly make a whole 3D tree from just the
> image.
> Alternatively, I guess you could just intersect{} it with a box and texture it
> with the image_map and see how that turns out...
> 
> Just thinking out loud..
> 
> 

Yes, all good suggestions needing to be tested... I have a bit too many 
things on my daily plate to be able to chew them properly at this 
moment. Starting a /new/ ToDo list (as if that would help).

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> > An idea off the top of my head: Instead of a flat billboard, you could make a
> > simple low-rez height_field for the tree (including the trunk too, possibly).
>
> Hmmm.
> If a heightfield is just a displacement based on the grayscale value of the
> image pixels, then you could also make an isosurface of it, and abs() should
> mirror the
> displacement in both directions.
> Then I think there's the isosurface approximation macros that could make a
> mesh{} of _that_, and then you could possibly make a whole 3D tree from just the
> image.
> Alternatively, I guess you could just intersect{} it with a box and texture it
> with the image_map and see how that turns out...
>

I was actually thinking that a sort of dome-shaped, low-rez crinkly HF (with
'smooth', and 'water_level' to clip off the ground plane), could then be rotated
-90*x, then aligned to the camera view like Thomas did with his billboards. With
the tree texture applied, that would make a quasi-3D tree shape, at least for
the 'bulk of tree leaves' if not the trunk, and it might pick up some
semi-realistic lighting highlights if phong is used. It wouldn't matter that the
HF is just a shell; its underside ('rear') would never be seen, since the HF
would always face the camera.

Post a reply to this message

hi,

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Please find here the (last) version of the scene. Search for the
> differences ;-)

spent hours, and still couldn't find Wally!  :-)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where%27s_Wally%3F>

> One notable change I want to elaborate on a bit. I dumped Gilles Tran's
> MakeGrass and replaced it by Lawnmaker from Uwe Gleiss (2004).  ...
> Not stopping there, and interested as I am in using mesh2{} files, ...

some months ago, I played with generated "tufts" of grass, made from a small
number of mesh2 grassblades, and thought the results ok.  attached, perhaps you
can put it use.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'tufts.inc.txt' (31 KB)

Op 22/10/2020 om 10:51 schreef jr:
> hi,
> 
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Please find here the (last) version of the scene. Search for the
>> differences ;-)
> 
> spent hours, and still couldn't find Wally!  :-)
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where%27s_Wally%3F>

Oh, LOL! this would be a great challenge to do someday in POV-Ray!
[I think that Wally is hidding in the tower... but one of the background 
trees is not impossible either.]

> 
>> One notable change I want to elaborate on a bit. I dumped Gilles Tran's
>> MakeGrass and replaced it by Lawnmaker from Uwe Gleiss (2004).  ...
>> Not stopping there, and interested as I am in using mesh2{} files, ...
> 
> some months ago, I played with generated "tufts" of grass, made from a small
> number of mesh2 grassblades, and thought the results ok.  attached, perhaps you
> can put it use.
> 

Thank you very much indeed. I shall certainly try it out. I am about 
finished with a HowTo document about Lawnmaker. When finished, I shall 
post the whole package in these n.g's.


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

hi,

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Op 22/10/2020 om 10:51 schreef jr:
> > Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> >> Please find here the (last) version of the scene. Search for the
> >> differences ;-)
> >
> > spent hours, and still couldn't find Wally!  :-)
>
> Oh, LOL! this would be a great challenge to do someday in POV-Ray!

a horde of Cousin Ricky's Androids, in bobble hats and striped jumpers?!

:-)


> I am about finished with a HowTo document about Lawnmaker. When finished,
> I shall post the whole package in these n.g's.

sounds good.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Op 22/10/2020 om 10:51 schreef jr:
> some months ago, I played with generated "tufts" of grass, made from a small
> number of mesh2 grassblades, and thought the results ok.  attached, perhaps you
> can put it use.
> 

Something is not right I believe. The app remains stuck in an endless 
loop while parsing, without generating anything. Could you provide a 
small demo scene where it works? Thanks!

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

hi,

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Op 22/10/2020 om 10:51 schreef jr:
> > some months ago, I played with generated "tufts" of grass, made from a small
> > number of mesh2 grassblades, and thought the results ok.  attached, perhaps you
> > can put it use.
>
> Something is not right I believe. The app remains stuck in an endless
> loop while parsing, without generating anything. Could you provide a
> small demo scene where it works? Thanks!

had a quick look over the code posted, and .. looks alright.  will post zip of
demo and  another copy of inc tonight.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

hi,

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Something is not right I believe. The app remains stuck in an endless
> loop while parsing, without generating anything. Could you provide a
> small demo scene where it works? Thanks!

I didn't have a demo scene per se, so the attached is cannibalised from a ("the"
:-)) wip scene.  the .inc file is the same as posted.  POV-Ray gets to about
280,000 "K tokens" parsing.  the "planting" is relatively sparse, one "tuft" per
square unit.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download '201024tdg.zip' (157 KB)

Op 24/10/2020 om 19:08 schreef jr:
> hi,
> 
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Something is not right I believe. The app remains stuck in an endless
>> loop while parsing, without generating anything. Could you provide a
>> small demo scene where it works? Thanks!
> 
> I didn't have a demo scene per se, so the attached is cannibalised from a ("the"
> :-)) wip scene.  the .inc file is the same as posted.  POV-Ray gets to about
> 280,000 "K tokens" parsing.  the "planting" is relatively sparse, one "tuft" per
> square unit.
> 
> 
> regards, jr.
> 

Thank you! I shall go with that and come back later.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Op 24/10/2020 om 19:08 schreef jr:
> hi,
> 
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Something is not right I believe. The app remains stuck in an endless
>> loop while parsing, without generating anything. Could you provide a
>> small demo scene where it works? Thanks!
> 
> I didn't have a demo scene per se, so the attached is cannibalised from a ("the"
> :-)) wip scene.  the .inc file is the same as posted.  POV-Ray gets to about
> 280,000 "K tokens" parsing.  the "planting" is relatively sparse, one "tuft" per
> square unit.
> 
> 
> regards, jr.
> 

OK, thank you very much indeed. This works. Going to look more closely.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Here you can find such arrangements of trees

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehesa

Best regards
Michael

Post a reply to this message