|
 |
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] inter nlDOTnet> wrote:
> Seems an interesting method. If you have time to port
> that out to the community, I (at least) would be very grateful. I can
> imagine a lot of applications.
Here you go. It should be quite self-explanatory. If you don't want a smooth
finish then use triangle instead of smooth_triangle.
// begin code
#macro ballpoint(vangle, rangle, rad)
#local yp = rad*cos(vangle);
#local locrad = rad*sin(vangle);
#local xp = locrad*sin(rangle);
#local zp = locrad*cos(rangle);
(<xp, yp, zp>)
#end
#macro meshball(obj, res)
mesh {
#local vang = 0;
#local ang = 0;
#local dvang = pi/res;
#local dang = 2*pi/res;
#local n1 = <0,0,0>;
#local n2 = <0,0,0>;
#local n3 = <0,0,0>;
#local n4 = <0,0,0>;
#while (vang < pi)
#while (ang < 2*pi)
#local v1 = trace(obj, <0,0,0>, ballpoint(vang, ang, 1), n1);
#local v2 = trace(obj, <0,0,0>, ballpoint(vang+dvang, ang, 1), n2);
#local v3 = trace(obj, <0,0,0>, ballpoint(vang, ang+dang, 1), n3);
#local v4 = trace(obj, <0,0,0>, ballpoint(vang+dvang, ang+dang, 1), n4);
smooth_triangle { v1, n1, v2, n2, v3, n3 }
smooth_triangle { v2, n2, v3, n3, v4, n4 }
#local ang = ang + dang;
#end
#local ang = 0;
#local vang = vang + dvang;
#end }
#end
// end code
Just call meshball(obj, res) where obj is your pre-declared object (centred on
the origin) and res is the triangle resolution (it's pretty fast with 100-200
and looks ok).
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, well, I don't care that much, it's just nice to know roughly what's
>> slowing things down. :) Anyway, preview is useful, I don't have to
>> wait for a
>
> That kind of nice-to-know -information is also provided by official
> Windows -version of POV-Ray, while it shows the PPM (pixels per minute?)
> -value at bottom right corner.
Problem is the PPM is an average over the whole rendered image, so it's
a bit hard to tell if a certain part takes longer.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
Mmm... have you noticed that in the left lower corner there is a profile
of a boulder-ish face? Your works is becoming alive...
;-)
Paolo
>Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Here we go again. Not much variation in these rocks, sorry, I promise to post
> something more interesting soon!
>
> In the end I gave up using the isosurface approximation macro, it was producing
> far too many sharp angles and the smoothing was suffering. So I wrote a quick
> and dirty mesh approximator that just shoots rays in a spherical polar grid
> from the center of the object. Obviously, if the object occludes its own centre
> anywhere then this won't work properly, but I'm just after a basic rocky shape
> so what the hell. This saves loads of parsing time and still looks pretty good
> up close; a little less craggy than previous versions maybe.
>
> So, this image rendered in 7 hours, a bit steep but the bushes and trees in
> cahoots with the antialiasing were the main culprits (that's the nice thing
> about MegaPOV, you can see exactly which pixels are slowing you down). The
> boulder itself renders really quick, even with radiosity. I'm really happy with
> the (relatively simple) bozo pigment on the rock, it hints at surface texture
> that isn't there, even really close up (thanks to partial tests without
> radiosity at 3000x3000).
>
> The triangular gaps in the plant life are deliberate; that's where the buildings
> will be.
>
> njoy
> Bill
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
