 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Paolo Gibellini <p.g### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> The grass add some more touch of realism to the background.
> Just a question: it seems to grow normal to the bricks, such as the
> gravity center would be at the cgsphere position. Is an intended effect?
Well, it just seems the easiest way to do it, and it stops the tussocks
intersecting the blocks too obviously. I have no problem leaving it this way,
especially as a) the grass is likely to stay small so it's not obvious, and b)
the slightly surreal feel is in keeping with the concept of the compo anyway.
:)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> <evil grin>
> hmmmm, wonder if, as an option, the triangles could be colored from the
> deforming pattern when they are created?
> </evil grin>
They could, very easily. I have a feeling that the memory usage might go up
somewhat, however.
:)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Grass, practically perfect. The colour looks more natural now, and the
distribution looks more even. I've gone back to blue-grey stone again, not sure
if it's the right colour though...
Bill
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'cgsphere8.jpg' (303 KB)
Preview of image 'cgsphere8.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht
news:web.486ca7179c465bad731f01d10@news.povray.org...
> Grass, practically perfect. The colour looks more natural now, and the
> distribution looks more even. I've gone back to blue-grey stone again, not
> sure
> if it's the right colour though...
>
This looks nice. The grass looks convincing. However, if there is grass,
there should also be some dirt between the stones, otherwise, no grass would
grow :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ooops, I posted the wrong image. This one is the latest version.
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> This looks nice. The grass looks convincing. However, if there is grass,
> there should also be some dirt between the stones, otherwise, no grass would
> grow :-)
I have seen grass growing on stonework with almost no visible dirt, but you're
right I guess. FWIW this version doesn't look so bad in this regard.
Bill
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'cgsphere9.jpg' (442 KB)
Preview of image 'cgsphere9.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Ooops, I posted the wrong image. This one is the latest version.
Bill, I think this version looks great, the grass is very nice.
After I thought about the rule against changing the background I realized it's
just to make sure all the grids line up so there's a common frame of reference
for each image submitted. Regarding materials, etc, I don't think that matters
as long as the background matches the grid geometry.
So, while playing around with my own blocks-as-background scene I noticed that
my perspective was off just a bit, as compared to the CGSphere template grid.
It took me a lot of tweaking to get it to line up right. I looked at yours and
noticed the same problem. I an image of your blocks merged with the CGSphere
template image so you can easily see where the grids diverge. Once you fix that
you're good to go I think :)
-Rob
"There is no spoon."
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'sphere_template_pragnell.jpg' (119 KB)
Preview of image 'sphere_template_pragnell.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Robert McGregor" <rob### [at] mcgregorfineartcom> wrote:
> I an image of your blocks merged with the CGSphere template image
> so you can easily see where the grids diverge. Once you fix that
> you're good to go I think :)
I *attached* an image even...
Here's the original CGSphere template.
:)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'sphere_template.jpg' (124 KB)
Preview of image 'sphere_template.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill, more concisely: you have 15 blocks showing from front to back (14.5
actually) - there should be only 14 blocks that fit EXACTLY into the view
plane.
-Rob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Robert McGregor" <rob### [at] mcgregorfineartcom> wrote:
> Bill, more concisely: you have 15 blocks showing from front to back (14.5
> actually) - there should be only 14 blocks that fit EXACTLY into the view
> plane.
Sorry, I have fumble-fingers typing and quick-click mousing going on tonight.
What I MEANT to say was:
There should be 15 blocks that fit EXACTLY into the view plane. You have 14.5
blocks showing from front to back. So you're about 1/2 block off.
-Rob
"There is no spoon."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Robert McGregor" <rob### [at] mcgregorfineartcom> wrote:
> "Robert McGregor" <rob### [at] mcgregorfineartcom> wrote:
> > Bill, more concisely: you have 15 blocks showing from front to back (14.5
> > actually) - there should be only 14 blocks that fit EXACTLY into the view
> > plane.
>
> Sorry, I have fumble-fingers typing and quick-click mousing going on tonight.
> What I MEANT to say was:
>
> There should be 15 blocks that fit EXACTLY into the view plane. You have 14.5
> blocks showing from front to back. So you're about 1/2 block off.
Hoho, if at first you fail to post, then post post again!
I'm not too worried about the discrepancy, but I think it's a combination of
factors. Firstly, my blocks have straight edges whereas the template grid has
curves - my blocks shortcut a little. Secondly, because my blocks are
superellipsoids, they're crammed together more forgivingly and are slightly
larger than they need to be.
I'll have a play - a little trial and error should sort it out!
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
