"JYR" <jyr### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "Bob Hughes" <bob### [at] charternet> wrote:
> > but it didn't help keep me from seeing this scene as two individual
> > parts glued together.
>
> I, for one, suggest that this is exactly what this picture is about. A
> double planetoid, two constructs of the same overall shape and size sharing
> the same location in space, with implied competition, but not necessarily
> interaction.
>
> But, this is only my interpretation of this work ;)

That's very much what I get from the original work, and what I'm trying to
preserve here. The two tetrahedral worlds are separate and isolated,
despite occupying the same space.

To address your other comments: I agree, I too prefer the single archway for
the bridge. I changed it because I didn't want the boulder to appear
smaller than the buildings - I think the two shapes should be equal in
size. I may well change it back...

A lot of people think vegetation is a bad idea! I'm still keen to add some,
but of the sparse, desert type. The trees will be windblown skeletons (if I
get it right!), the bushes pale and scrubby. The hostility of the boulder
will thus be maintained. People on the buildings and vegetation on the
boulder will also help to establish the vertical (i.e., direction of
gravity) over both surfaces, which I think is quite important as a visual
hook.

The join where the two shapes intersect is indeed a problem. I may do some
creative interlocking, as in the original, or just have more vegetation
close to the wall as Bob suggested. This would make sense, too, I guess, if
the inhabitants of the buildings were in the habit of throwing waste out of
their windows!

Thanks for the suggestions and encouragement :)

Bill

Post a reply to this message

"helge_h" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Nice; I like it a lot.
Cheers!

> I think closer and wider angle is better, more 'sci-fi', and gives the
> feeling of a large object. And have you thought about the background? A
> huge asteroid field and a big planet maybe? With black background and
> starfield...
The background will be the last thing I do, I suspect. I'd quite like to
keep it sky blue, so that the shadowed areas look properly lit (adds
realism). I like the idea that it's floating, lost, in some infinite sky...

But there has to be something behind it. I was thinking of hazy planets in
the distance. A non-planetary atmospheric volume like Larry Niven's 'smoke
ring' (in his novel 'the Integral Trees') or Iain Banks' 'airspheres' (in
'Look to Windward').

But, as with the vegetation, I shall have to experiment.

Bill

Post a reply to this message

"DLM" <mae### [at] combumbiumdedu> wrote:
> This leaves an issue of scale - it looks no bigger than a rock or a
> boulder - so the structures look doll's house scale at biggest. Perhaps they
> have tiny ant-sized inhabitants? However if the habitations are human scale,
> the coarse structure needs to become the detail. e.g.
> http://www.tc.umn.edu/~dasg0007/picture%20gallery/northshore/ns10.htm

Yes, I agree. I need to play with the textures further. I think it's quite
important that the scale of the object be obvious and realistic. I'm not
sure I can manage quite the realism of that example, though! ;)

Bill

Post a reply to this message

Bill,
I like this very much. Very Escher-like! Most has already been said, so I
shall not repeat here. Not too much vegetation though, and be careful that
the background does not become too distracting.
Keep up the excellent work!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:

Not much of an Escher fan, so had never seen this one. Looked it up, and 
it is pretty cool. Your's needs the holes in the rock for the two 
planetoids to interlock.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:

> 
> The 'grunginess' towards the edges is not deliberate - I think it's a
> radiosity artefact. 

Ahh.  Which would explain its presence on the boulder too.

Post a reply to this message