"Trevor G Quayle" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Ny further critique, suggestions are more than welcome.
>
> -tgq

Don't know if you posted any script or what youre using for normals.
Here's a Cousin Ricky norm and the one I did for the Lego pool.
not in that order

#declare n_surface = normal {
         function { f_ridge (x, y, z, 0.1, 1.0, 7, 0.7, 0.7, 0) } 2
//   function { f_ridged_mf (x, y, z, 0.1, 3.0, 7, 0.7, 0.7, 2) } 2
}
 //f_ridge = function { internal(58) }
// Parameters: x, y, z
    // Six extra parameters required:
    // 1. lambda
    // 2. octaves
    // 3. omega
    // 4. offset
    // 5. Ridge
    // 6. noise
// Parameters: x, y, z
    // Six extra parameters required:
    // 1. H
    // 2. Lacunarity
    // 3. octaves
    // 4. offset
    // 5. Gain
    // 6. noise

Post a reply to this message

"alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> "Trevor G Quayle" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > Ny further critique, suggestions are more than welcome.
> >
> > -tgq
>
> Don't know if you posted any script or what youre using for normals.
> Here's a Cousin Ricky norm and the one I did for the Lego pool.
> not in that order
>
> #declare n_surface = normal {
>          function { f_ridge (x, y, z, 0.1, 1.0, 7, 0.7, 0.7, 0) } 2
> //   function { f_ridged_mf (x, y, z, 0.1, 3.0, 7, 0.7, 0.7, 2) } 2
> }
>  //f_ridge = function { internal(58) }
> // Parameters: x, y, z
>     // Six extra parameters required:
>     // 1. lambda
>     // 2. octaves
>     // 3. omega
>     // 4. offset
>     // 5. Ridge
>     // 6. noise
> // Parameters: x, y, z
>     // Six extra parameters required:
>     // 1. H
>     // 2. Lacunarity
>     // 3. octaves
>     // 4. offset
>     // 5. Gain
>     // 6. noise

The water surface is f_ridged_mf(x,y,z, 0.1, 3, 7, 0.7, 0.7, 2) plus procedural,
hand placed ripples.  It is not a normal though, but actually a heightfield.

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

"Trevor G Quayle" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I wasn't originally going to go in this direction, but with some of the comments
> on my previous render I ran through some alterations.

Awesome!

But there's something lacking to give the whole thing a scale of sorts... the
way it is now, it could just as well be the size of a toy.

Maybe add some bump map decoration to the feet?

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Trevor G Quayle" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> But there's something lacking to give the whole thing a scale of sorts... the
> way it is now, it could just as well be the size of a toy.
>
> Maybe add some bump map decoration to the feet?

.... or use a shallower angle for the camera..?

Post a reply to this message

"Trevor G Quayle" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > I spit out a few quick examples with different environments.
> > Excuse the aliasing, I know it can be painful!

Of these, I'd take the bottom left one.

Post a reply to this message

"Trevor G Quayle" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.49480bd26655db1881c811d20@news.povray.org...
> The water surface is f_ridged_mf(x,y,z, 0.1, 3, 7, 0.7, 0.7, 2) plus 
> procedural,
> hand placed ripples.  It is not a normal though, but actually a 
> heightfield.
>

I am not entirely sure if this function is really natural to a bathtube or 
any confined water surface, up to a certain scale. I think that wave and 
ripple are dominant, and often combined together. As an example, here 
follows the code I am currently experimenting with. The scaling is optional 
but can be used for fine-tuning the whole. Frequency and turbulence are the 
main parameters. Note also the difference in the rotation.

// start of code
#declare Bigripple =
normal {
  waves 1
  frequency 6
  turbulence 0.8
  scale <0.5, 0.2, 0.2>*0.5
  translate -100*z
  rotate -30*y
}

#declare Smallripple =
normal {
  ripples 1
  frequency 3
  turbulence 0.5
  scale <0.35, 0.25, 0.25>*0.2
  translate 100*z
  rotate -10*z
}

#declare RippleNorm =
normal {
  average
  normal_map {
    [0.9 Bigripple]
    [0.8 Smallripple]
  }
}
// end of code

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Trevor G Quayle" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > > I spit out a few quick examples with different environments.
> > > Excuse the aliasing, I know it can be painful!
>
> Of these, I'd take the bottom left one.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'btub2.jpg' (130 KB)

Preview of image 'btub2.jpg'

The hose seems too thin to me.

Post a reply to this message

"alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> Here's a Cousin Ricky norm and the one I did for the Lego pool.
> not in that order
>
> #declare n_surface = normal {
>          function { f_ridge (x, y, z, 0.1, 1.0, 7, 0.7, 0.7, 0) } 2
> //   function { f_ridged_mf (x, y, z, 0.1, 3.0, 7, 0.7, 0.7, 2) } 2
> }

I got the 2nd function from Christoph Hormann's water tutorial.

The "2" on the end is mine, though.  A plane with a surface normal is not
realistic near the horizon.  I was spurred to investigate when the real-life
sea outside my car window looked nothing like my render.  An isosurface (or
height field) looked a lot more like the real thing.  The "2" was an attempt to
compensate for the difference without giving up the speed advantage of a plane.

Post a reply to this message

"Cousin Ricky" <ric### [at] yahoocom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.4949f2a26655db1885de7b680@news.povray.org...
> "alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>> Here's a Cousin Ricky norm and the one I did for the Lego pool.
>> not in that order
>>
>> #declare n_surface = normal {
>>          function { f_ridge (x, y, z, 0.1, 1.0, 7, 0.7, 0.7, 0) } 2
>> //   function { f_ridged_mf (x, y, z, 0.1, 3.0, 7, 0.7, 0.7, 2) } 2
>> }
>
> I got the 2nd function from Christoph Hormann's water tutorial.
>
> The "2" on the end is mine, though.  A plane with a surface normal is not
> realistic near the horizon.  I was spurred to investigate when the 
> real-life
> sea outside my car window looked nothing like my render.  An isosurface 
> (or
> height field) looked a lot more like the real thing.  The "2" was an 
> attempt to
> compensate for the difference without giving up the speed advantage of a 
> plane.
>

Hm. I am not entirely convinced, although your function looks better than 
Christoph's. I have some doubts about the use of f_ridge for ripples/waves 
anyway. I prefer (for the time being) my own method (see above) with wave 
and ripple patterns. Using judiciously the ripple origin, you can even make 
interference patterns with that. Anyway, in most cases, ripples look like... 
ripples and waves look like... waves in nature.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message