Bill Pragnell nous illumina en ce 2009-02-24 16:30 -->
> The first modelling steps for a scene I've had in mind for a while now.
> 
> There'll be other structures too eventually, but I'm starting with the
> columns...
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
Why does it make my think of modeling clay?
Maybe to smooth or not smooth enough...

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Agnostic: Did someone shit?

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> The first modelling steps for a scene I've had in mind for a while now.
>
> There'll be other structures too eventually, but I'm starting with the
> columns...

Sounds / looks like a fitting scene for the upcoming TC-RTC round...

I think the columns are either too bulky or too close together. The way they
are, for some reason they look like a miniature.

Post a reply to this message

"P Brewer" <pbj### [at] wowwaycom> wrote:
> Very nice... I can't wait to see the final scene. Are you using straight
> isosurfaces?

100% meshes, macro-built in SDL. This rendered in 12 minutes on an ageing
Mac. It renders in under a minute without the radiosity... no way I could get
that performance out of isosurfaces!

Bill

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> Nice! Time for me to renew my own interest in this theme.  I am quite
> close to completing a second pass on my Corinthian capital which I how
> to weather with your mesh macros and also with your random placement macro.

I look forward to it. :)

Post a reply to this message

Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell nous illumina en ce 2009-02-24 16:30 -->
> > The first modelling steps for a scene I've had in mind for a while now.
> >
> > There'll be other structures too eventually, but I'm starting with the
> > columns...
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> Why does it make my think of modeling clay?
> Maybe to smooth or not smooth enough...

Hmm, maybe. I might try normals, or maybe just crinkling up the pigment.

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Sounds / looks like a fitting scene for the upcoming TC-RTC round...

Too true, but I don't think I'll finish it in time for that. Maybe I could enter
a WIP if I get enough done.

> I think the columns are either too bulky or too close together. The way they
> are, for some reason they look like a miniature.

Well, this is just a test render, they won't be that close together in the end.
There'll be vegetation etc (hopefully!) to provide some reference for scale,
too, so I'm not too worried about that.

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "P Brewer" <pbj### [at] wowwaycom> wrote:
> > Very nice... I can't wait to see the final scene. Are you using straight
> > isosurfaces?
>
> 100% meshes, macro-built in SDL. This rendered in 12 minutes on an ageing
> Mac. It renders in under a minute without the radiosity... no way I could get
> that performance out of isosurfaces!

Hum... sounds like I should definitely give your macros a try for my bricks. I
fancy it would also give me more freedom how to erode them. My own blob-based
approach is rather limited in this respect.

Do I need to start with an isosurface, or will any shape do?

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > "P Brewer" <pbj### [at] wowwaycom> wrote:
> > > Very nice... I can't wait to see the final scene. Are you using straight
> > > isosurfaces?
> >
> > 100% meshes, macro-built in SDL. This rendered in 12 minutes on an ageing
> > Mac. It renders in under a minute without the radiosity... no way I could get
> > that performance out of isosurfaces!
>
> Hum... sounds like I should definitely give your macros a try for my bricks. I
> fancy it would also give me more freedom how to erode them. My own blob-based
> approach is rather limited in this respect.
>
> Do I need to start with an isosurface, or will any shape do?

Any shape whose surface is completely visible from the specified centre-point
(so make sure CSG is a merge!). It suffers a little from stretch artifacts for
long shapes, so I should probably try to improve the grid shape...

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > Do I need to start with an isosurface, or will any shape do?
>
> Any shape whose surface is completely visible from the specified centre-point
> (so make sure CSG is a merge!). It suffers a little from stretch artifacts for
> long shapes, so I should probably try to improve the grid shape...

Hum... then it might actually not work with my brick w/ holes?

Are the mesh generation and distortion separate steps, so that I might be able
to adapt the mesh generation algorithm to use those macros on my bricks?

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > > Do I need to start with an isosurface, or will any shape do?
> >
> > Any shape whose surface is completely visible from the specified centre-point
> > (so make sure CSG is a merge!). It suffers a little from stretch artifacts for
> > long shapes, so I should probably try to improve the grid shape...
>
> Hum... then it might actually not work with my brick w/ holes?

It wouldn't work completely. You'd have to make the holes via a difference.

> Are the mesh generation and distortion separate steps, so that I might be able
> to adapt the mesh generation algorithm to use those macros on my bricks?

It perturbs each mesh point as it goes, so it'd be a bit of a rewrite I'm
afraid. But the technique is sound, as long as you could create your bricks as
meshes, all the perturbation needs is a normal and a pigment function.

Look at the code; it's in the object collection.

Post a reply to this message