William Tracy <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote:
> The level of detail on both the sphere and the "little person" (is that
> Aiko?) are great, but the sand falls a tad flat.

Yes, 'tis Aiko! Silly really, I end up using her for everything at the
moment. The main reason is that I'm only really interested in using Poser
figures to establish scale, and for a touch of the 'human presence'. I've
found good quality free body textures and hair for Aiko so I've stuck with
her for the time being.

Yah, the sand issue. Actually sand *can* look totally flat and textureless
under some conditions, but I agree it does lack a little something. On the
other hand, you recognised that it was sand quite readily! ;-)

I am continuing my experiments with a low-level view of the sphere.

Bill

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:web.4668735ae82172a47e595fbb0@news.povray.org...
> William Tracy <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote:
>> The level of detail on both the sphere and the "little person" (is that
>> Aiko?) are great, but the sand falls a tad flat.
>
> Yes, 'tis Aiko! Silly really, I end up using her for everything at the
> moment. The main reason is that I'm only really interested in using Poser
> figures to establish scale, and for a touch of the 'human presence'. I've
> found good quality free body textures and hair for Aiko so I've stuck with
> her for the time being.

      If you pose her pushing that column (the column on the floor in front 
of her) into the sphere, then that would finish this image for me.


       8/10     :)


     ~Steve~



> Bill
>

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Yah, the sand issue. Actually sand *can* look totally flat and textureless
> under some conditions, but I agree it does lack a little something. On the
> other hand, you recognised that it was sand quite readily! ;-)

You know, I think the only reason I mentioned the sand is that the 
texture on the blocks is so nice. :-) It makes the sand stand out as 
bland. :-P

BTW, it would be cool to see this image with radiosity. Bring it up the 
level of your 3D-rtc entry. ;-)

-- 
William Tracy
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|a|f|i|s|h|i|o|n|a|d|o|@|g|m|a|i|l|.|c|o|m|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|w|t|r|a|c|y|@|c|a|l|p|o|l|y|.|e|d|u|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
You know you've been raytracing too long when you've ever "lost" a Julia 
fractal because you're not quite sure how to align things in four 
dimensions.
Dylan Beattie

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Hi all. I finally got around to finishing my ruinous cgsphere. I think it
> looks rather good, although you can't really see the little person clearly!
> I'm working on an alternative camera position to rectify that; I shall post
> it when it's done.

Interesting... Like it!

Post a reply to this message

William Tracy <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote:
> You know, I think the only reason I mentioned the sand is that the
> texture on the blocks is so nice. :-) It makes the sand stand out as
> bland. :-P
The blocks have only basic grey single-colour pigments. The texture comes
from their physical shape :P . In the close-up version (rendering as I
type) I've given the sand some turbulence so it looks grittier. It's much
better.

> BTW, it would be cool to see this image with radiosity. Bring it up the
> level of your 3D-rtc entry. ;-)
Errr, this image already relies heavily on radiosity... without radiosity
the shadowed areas are all black.

Bill

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>       If you pose her pushing that column (the column on the floor in front
> of her) into the sphere, then that would finish this image for me.

Slave-driver!

"They had whips, Rimmer. Massive, massive whips."

:-D

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> BTW, it would be cool to see this image with radiosity. Bring it up the
>> level of your 3D-rtc entry. ;-)
> Errr, this image already relies heavily on radiosity... without radiosity
> the shadowed areas are all black.

Wow, on the first take it sure looked like just ambient to me, but I'm 
starting to see the radiosity effects on the inside of the sphere.

Are you using any sort of sky sphere?

-- 
William Tracy
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|a|f|i|s|h|i|o|n|a|d|o|@|g|m|a|i|l|.|c|o|m|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|w|t|r|a|c|y|@|c|a|l|p|o|l|y|.|e|d|u|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
You know you've been raytracing too long when you know what each part in 
a motor looks like but don't know its name.
Quietly Watching

Post a reply to this message

William Tracy <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> >> BTW, it would be cool to see this image with radiosity. Bring it up the
> >> level of your 3D-rtc entry. ;-)
> > Errr, this image already relies heavily on radiosity... without radiosity
> > the shadowed areas are all black.
>
> Wow, on the first take it sure looked like just ambient to me, but I'm
> starting to see the radiosity effects on the inside of the sphere.
>
> Are you using any sort of sky sphere?

Yep, a big blue one! :-)

Actually, it's just a background { rgb <0.7,0.9,1> } but MegaPOV seems to
use the background in radiosity calculations by default.

Bill

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/06/08 15:17:
> William Tracy <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote:
>> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>>>> BTW, it would be cool to see this image with radiosity. Bring it up the
>>>> level of your 3D-rtc entry. ;-)
>>> Errr, this image already relies heavily on radiosity... without radiosity
>>> the shadowed areas are all black.
>> Wow, on the first take it sure looked like just ambient to me, but I'm
>> starting to see the radiosity effects on the inside of the sphere.
>>
>> Are you using any sort of sky sphere?
> 
> Yep, a big blue one! :-)
> 
> Actually, it's just a background { rgb <0.7,0.9,1> } but MegaPOV seems to
> use the background in radiosity calculations by default.
> 
> Bill
> 
Acording to my experience, POV-Ray normaly use the background, and any 
background feature like a sky_sphere, when evaluating radiosity.
Look at the attached image from a short code contest. The sky is background{rgb 
<.5,.7,1>}, the light  <8,4,2> and the ground rgb 1 using radiosity with default 
settings. You do see bluish areas.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
I just got lost in thought. It wasn't familiar territory.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'gyscwj_l.jpg' (134 KB)

Preview of image 'gyscwj_l.jpg'

Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Acording to my experience, POV-Ray normaly use the background, and any
> background feature like a sky_sphere, when evaluating radiosity.

Ah, interesting, I wonder how I missed that. Something I've done in the past
definitely gave me the impression that POV-Ray ignores sky_sphere and
background in radiosity calculations... thanks for the pointer. :-)

Post a reply to this message