 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Not a finished image yet, but some development on the grassy sphere. Rendering
grass is quite interesting; placement algorithms seem to be far more important
than the actual grass geometry... this rendered in 4+ hours (AA with radiosity
really hammers it).
Bill
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'grass_sphere.jpg' (101 KB)
Preview of image 'grass_sphere.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very nice. Could you get away with just using one triangle as grass?
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> Not a finished image yet, but some development on the grassy sphere. Rendering
> grass is quite interesting; placement algorithms seem to be far more important
> than the actual grass geometry... this rendered in 4+ hours (AA with radiosity
> really hammers it).
>
> Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Not a finished image yet, but some development on the grassy sphere. Rendering
> grass is quite interesting; placement algorithms seem to be far more important
> than the actual grass geometry... this rendered in 4+ hours (AA with radiosity
> really hammers it).
>
> Bill
Looks good, but 4+ hours! Yikes! Have you tried Blender for this sort of
thing? :)
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Not a finished image yet, but some development on the grassy sphere. Rendering
> grass is quite interesting; placement algorithms seem to be far more important
> than the actual grass geometry... this rendered in 4+ hours (AA with radiosity
> really hammers it).
>
> Bill
I think I would have done the radiosity without all of the grass and saved it,
then loaded the stored radiosity data for the final trace. I find this to be
much faster, and the results are rarely different.
-Reactor
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge <THI### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > Not a finished image yet, but some development on the grassy sphere. Rendering
> > grass is quite interesting; placement algorithms seem to be far more important
> > than the actual grass geometry... this rendered in 4+ hours (AA with radiosity
> > really hammers it).
> >
> > Bill
>
> Looks good, but 4+ hours! Yikes! Have you tried Blender for this sort of
> thing? :)
Yikes indeed, but it's not a top-end machine. It renders in about 4 minutes
without the radiosity or AA. I've not really used Blender for anything, and
when I do I'll need to take a good run at it, to judge from opinions here!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Reactor" <rea### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > Not a finished image yet, but some development on the grassy sphere. Rendering
> > grass is quite interesting; placement algorithms seem to be far more important
> > than the actual grass geometry... this rendered in 4+ hours (AA with radiosity
> > really hammers it).
> >
> > Bill
>
>
> I think I would have done the radiosity without all of the grass and saved it,
> then loaded the stored radiosity data for the final trace. I find this to be
> much faster, and the results are rarely different.
I'll give it a try.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looks really good!
Sven
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
