 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well my first try with a slope dependant texture. The rock texture needs
work, although it does look volcanic at the moment. Well this is a ridged
multifractal and granite isosurface. The mist and clouds are media although
the clouds are possibly a bit too high, woops.
Anyway comments and criticisms are welcome, apart from 'you need to increase
the accuracy of the iso to remove the black lines visible near the bottom'
and 'the snow/rock border in the bottom right corner is too "blobby?" ' as I
made those two already :)
Render Stats:
parse 1s (nice)
trace 33h 27m 40s (not so nice)
on a PIII 667mhz with 128mb Ram and Windows NT
cheers
Kev
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'MOUNTAIN.jpg' (87 KB)
Preview of image 'MOUNTAIN.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
also it uses radiosity and render stats are for 1024*768 (I could post the
full size png to my website (about 500kb) if anyone wants it)
Kev
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looks good, but the rendering time is horrible ! You should do something about
it...
You probably could drop the media and use a textured sky and fog as a
substitute.
I think Bob did a RMF-isosurface mountain animation some time ago, it wasn't
that large and the mountains had no additional granite pattern, but it was
probably a lot faster ...
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christoph Hormann" <Chr### [at] schunteretctu-bsde> wrote in
message news:399D56F2.C904109D@schunter.etc.tu-bs.de...
|
| Looks good, but the rendering time is horrible ! You should do something
about
| it...
|
| I think Bob did a RMF-isosurface mountain animation some time ago, it
wasn't
| that large and the mountains had no additional granite pattern, but it was
| probably a lot faster ...
Heck yes. 33 hours?! Even with the media there I can't imagine why so slow
to render. Any reflection in the snow perhaps? LOL
I mean gee, a 667MHz PIII CPU there afterall. My machine is a 500MHz PIII
and I think a 360x180 frame was around 3 minutes. If I were to guess I'd
say a 1024x768 render would have been less than 20 minutes for me, so
something is sure increasing your time there. Probably the accuracy most of
all, I had used 0.001 not 0.00001 or any such low number. Surprised to see
there's still artifacts showing up if you did use a very low number.
Media isn't THAT slow.
Oh, yeah. Great mountains. The granite might have done well if negatively
applied instead of the usual positive way. That way you'd get lumps and not
depressions, or it should anyway.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well I did use variable reflection and the radiosity includes normal and
media clculations, checking the stats I think the main slowness is due to
the camera being inside the bounding box for the isosurface as only 2pc of
the isosurface rays intersection tests actually hit the isosurface, woops,
maybe the containing box needs optimising. Accuracy was set to 0.0001. Oh
well.......
Kev
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I come to expect render times of 20-30hrs with media and radiosity and
isosurfaces etc,etc. So If you want real quality long render times are the
price you pay.
I use a 800mhz athalon and still get longer times. I lot depends on what
else is running. I usually shut down and restart before starting a long
render.
Reflection, ior and transparency also add enormously to render times.
Mick
"kevin ellis" <kev### [at] libertysurfcouk> wrote in message
news:399d48ce@news.povray.org...
>
> Well my first try with a slope dependant texture. The rock texture needs
> work, although it does look volcanic at the moment. Well this is a ridged
> multifractal and granite isosurface. The mist and clouds are media
although
> the clouds are possibly a bit too high, woops.
>
> Anyway comments and criticisms are welcome, apart from 'you need to
increase
> the accuracy of the iso to remove the black lines visible near the bottom'
> and 'the snow/rock border in the bottom right corner is too "blobby?" ' as
I
> made those two already :)
>
> Render Stats:
>
> parse 1s (nice)
> trace 33h 27m 40s (not so nice)
>
> on a PIII 667mhz with 128mb Ram and Windows NT
>
> cheers
> Kev
>
>
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looking again at this image I wouldn't say radiosity did it any good, or at
least could probably have been done without for the sake of a speedier
render.
Going to add photons next, Kevin? j/k!
Bob
"Mick Hazelgrove" <mic### [at] mhazelgrovefsnetcouk> wrote in message
news:399d74d8@news.povray.org...
| I come to expect render times of 20-30hrs with media and radiosity and
| isosurfaces etc,etc. So If you want real quality long render times are the
| price you pay.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
wow, that's awesome. I love the sky, it's perfect
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
For some reason it indicates an alien landscape to me. Looks like lots of wind
and extreme temperature, like you would expect on a non-class-M planet.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
These mountain/landscape scenes are just getting better and better.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
1:52am up 1 day, 1:28, 3 users, load average: 1.00, 1.03, 1.05
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
