 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ger <No.### [at] Thank You> wrote:
> Making fleets of knots shouldn't be all that much of a problem because the
> further away they are the less details they need. The one up close is fully
> detailed, the one in the distance is/could be only an outline.
Agreed. I'm thinking of three full-detail knots, and maybe one small fleet
in the distance - I don't want to make the image too busy!
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Florian Brucker <tor### [at] torfboldcom> wrote:
> I really like where you're taking this. The image already has a nice
> atmosphere, so there's little I can nitpick at.
Thanks!
> One thing is that I'd
> add more knots in the distance - to me it seems that the front knot is
> some kind of a planet, with the upper knot being a moon or something
> similar.
What I had in mind was that these knots are like small spaceships,
artificial constructs floating around in some kind of gaseous environment.
Such environments tend to look either boring or incomprehensible, so I
thought a blue sky above would add something of our world to the picture.
The hazy knot in the distance is meant to be (and indeed is) very, very
large and very, very far away, like a giant moon-knot. I actually added it
very last-minute; I originally wanted a moon, but thought a knot might be
more fun. Its presence could go some way to explaining the preferred
building geometries of the locals!
Scale will be more obvious in later versions - there will be gantries and
stairways festooning the brickwork (hopefully!).
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jon Buller" <jon### [at] bullersnet> wrote:
> I feel a little lost when I look at the image. Am I in a plane/ship flying
> over some part of the foreground knot, or am I standing on a portion of it
> looking almost straight up? I think some sort of horizon would help orient
> the image.
I tried! The 'horizon', such as it is, is what the hazy knot is peeking
over... the blue sky was supposed to be a clue in that regard!
> I think it's more dramatic and accessable
> seeing the ring fade into the distance and climb up overhead than it is to
> be off in some random location just looking at some chunk of it.
Hmm... yes, I'm not completely satisfied with the hazy moon-knot. Maybe if I
make it even bigger, as if the orange gas-plane is actually on its surface,
as with the ringworld arch. Is that the kind of thing you meant? I shall
play with the concept.
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote:
> This is IT!
Wahey!
> Just a thought, whatever it is worth: How about some communication link
> between the knots. Doesn't need to be entirely explicit (like a suspension
> bridge for instance), but like a flying bus service :-)
What, like a no.16 London Routemaster? :)
Hangliders. That would fit with the low-tech vision I have. In fact, I was
thinking of birds, too, so that would fit even better. With nothing but
knots and birds for inspiration, what else could these hypothetical people
build? ;)
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> Very imaginative. Suggests grandeur, and pleasing novelty, like we are
> visiting a pleasurably fascinating world. The multiple knots immersed
> in atmosphere transforms the whole concept. It takes it completely out
> of the sphere of the intellectual and of metaphor, and into the sphere
> of fantasy and imagination.
This is how I have always seen these constructs. :)
Thanks for the thoughts. Viewing a picture involves as much imagination as
creating, and I think nobody could put that better than you!
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "Jon Buller" <jon### [at] bullersnet> wrote:
> > I feel a little lost when I look at the image. Am I in a plane/ship flying
> > over some part of the foreground knot, or am I standing on a portion of it
> > looking almost straight up? I think some sort of horizon would help orient
> > the image.
>
> I tried! The 'horizon', such as it is, is what the hazy knot is peeking
> over... the blue sky was supposed to be a clue in that regard!
>
> > I think it's more dramatic and accessable
> > seeing the ring fade into the distance and climb up overhead than it is to
> > be off in some random location just looking at some chunk of it.
> Hmm... yes, I'm not completely satisfied with the hazy moon-knot. Maybe if I
> make it even bigger, as if the orange gas-plane is actually on its surface,
> as with the ringworld arch. Is that the kind of thing you meant? I shall
> play with the concept.
>
> Bill
I think what you need to do is have some piece of the knot that looks like
you could be walking on it, or flying close to it... A ground plane for
practical purposes. The atmosphere is nice, but not the same, that could
come from some randomly odd sun angle, or maybe a larger planet atmosphere
we are nearby.
Personal opinion: rotate the scene 90 degrees counter clockwise, and move
the camera a bit to the (new) left and a little down as well. This gives a
big hunk of the knot as a sort of brick road that you could walk on that
goes to the right and slightly away. A little bit of playing around could
probably make it curve up or down as well, but I think that is unnecessary.
There is enough twist in the rest of the foreground knot to imply that you
are on it and beside, the texture is the same. It becomes trivial to
assume that just off the right of the image the knot will curve up or down
into the the rest of the bits you can see nearby.
I actually like the hazy moon knot. It gives the image a sort of symmetry
and contrast. A foreground and background, distinct and obscure, in orange
and in blue, large and small, etc... And I think that making many more or
making the hazy one bigger would just make it too cluttered without
actually adding anything to the image.
Also with the lonely feelings others mentioned, the single hazy knot makes
it look like you aren't alone, but you have no way to get there, making the
loneliness worse.
Jon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht
news:web.43f1ac88646e4d2e731f01d10@news.povray.org...
> "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote:
> > This is IT!
> Wahey!
>
> > Just a thought, whatever it is worth: How about some communication link
> > between the knots. Doesn't need to be entirely explicit (like a
suspension
> > bridge for instance), but like a flying bus service :-)
> What, like a no.16 London Routemaster? :)
Now... That IS a bright idea!!! :-)
>
> Hangliders. That would fit with the low-tech vision I have. In fact, I was
> thinking of birds, too, so that would fit even better. With nothing but
> knots and birds for inspiration, what else could these hypothetical people
> build? ;)
>
Absolutely!!!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>... - the double helix staircases are out; there'll be more
> irregular, imperfect constructions instead (including staircases!). This
> post is just to see what everyone thinks about the tone of the image...
No more double helix staircases?! :-(
I liked 'em. I liked 'em ALOT! (Probably as much from a technical
standpoint as for their beauty.)
Looking forward to seeing what you'll be replacing them with. Something
cool, I'm sure.
Ken
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jon Buller" <jon### [at] bullersnet> wrote:
> Personal opinion: rotate the scene 90 degrees counter clockwise, and move
> the camera a bit to the (new) left and a little down as well. This gives a
> big hunk of the knot as a sort of brick road that you could walk on that
> goes to the right and slightly away. A little bit of playing around could
> probably make it curve up or down as well, but I think that is unnecessary.
I see what you're getting at. That's an interesting concept... it would
probably look really nice, although I'm not sure I should be using a
brick-knot for that. However, it's not really what I had in mind. I intend
to have some human-type constructions attached to the knot as if it were a
column, as in previous posts, i.e. with the vertical aligned with the knot
axis. The camera would then be floating alongside. This makes the whole
thing more vertiginous (for me, at least - I really don't like sheer
heights!).
I may revisit your concept at some point, however...
> It becomes trivial to
> assume that just off the right of the image the knot will curve up or down
> into the the rest of the bits you can see nearby.
I should hope so, 'cos it does! :)
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "Jon Buller" <jon### [at] bullersnet> wrote:
> > Personal opinion: rotate the scene 90 degrees counter clockwise, and move
> > the camera a bit to the (new) left and a little down as well. This gives a
> > big hunk of the knot as a sort of brick road that you could walk on that
> > goes to the right and slightly away. A little bit of playing around could
> > probably make it curve up or down as well, but I think that is unnecessary.
>
> I see what you're getting at. That's an interesting concept... it would
> probably look really nice, although I'm not sure I should be using a
> brick-knot for that. However, it's not really what I had in mind. I intend
> to have some human-type constructions attached to the knot as if it were a
> column, as in previous posts, i.e. with the vertical aligned with the knot
> axis. The camera would then be floating alongside. This makes the whole
> thing more vertiginous (for me, at least - I really don't like sheer
> heights!).
OK, I guess you are going after a x-wing flying over the DeathStar trench
kind of thing. I suspect it will probably be fine then. (As if it were my
image to be fine with... 8^) The way it is, I was feeling confused because
it looked like a brick path to walk on, but it was built on the side of a
cliff. Rather disorienting... And I couldn't see the whole thing like
when you had the staircases on them, so I couldn't orient myself to it that
way either.
As soon as you have a bunch of objects sprouting out of the knot at all
angles, that brick pathway feeling will probably be long gone.
> I may revisit your concept at some point, however...
I'd like to see that. Or maybe I'll be able to do it myself, once I figure
out a good "normal" function to base the "knot space" on. The 2nd
derivative of my knot is not continuous, but I need a C2 vector
perpendicular to the tangent to make it all work. I've faked a couple of
functions to work, but they have some odd looking twists in places...
Wish I remembered more of the differential geometry class I had in college
years and years ago...
Jon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
