"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> One thing more: the column bases should be sunk *below* the flagstone upper
> surfaces! They appear to float above ground now.  :-)

Yes, this was bothering me too. It's because the weathering lowers the surfaces
slightly. I'd better lower the column bases a little. In which case, the
flagstones should really be arranged so that the column bases exactly fit in
with the flagstone grid... *mutters and starts scrawling sums on a bit of
paper*

:)

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> A good suggestion, Thomas. I have implemented a first attempt at what you
> describe, attached here. I think it does look better, although that's partly
> because I now have more crevices in which to grow the grass! :-)

The gaps between the floor and the feet of the pillars are way too wide, and
most of all way too deep; if they'd have formed at all (hey, how much weight is
resting on the things?), I fancy they should be filled with dirt.

Looks like you tried to have the floor "sink" a bit, as someone suggested
earlier, but think about why that should happen:

Abrasion from sand being blown through the building.
Abrasion from tourist feet.

Whatever you come up with, it can't possibly have affected those parts of the
floor covered by pillars carrying tons and tons of weight.

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> The gaps between the floor and the feet of the pillars are way too wide, and
> most of all way too deep; if they'd have formed at all (hey, how much weight is
> resting on the things?), I fancy they should be filled with dirt.

See previous post. A remedy is currently underway.

> Looks like you tried to have the floor "sink" a bit, as someone suggested
> earlier, but think about why that should happen:
>
> Abrasion from sand being blown through the building.
> Abrasion from tourist feet.

You missed one: because it was built that way.

Honestly, physical erosion never occurred to me, and certainly wasn't the look I
was going for. I don't understand how it could happen that way, either - the
edges of the inner courtyard floor are far too sharp for a slow erosion. I
think this is clearly a deliberately raised, paved gallery around a bare inner
floor, which might even be the unmodified floor level from before the building
was put up.

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > Looks like you tried to have the floor "sink" a bit, as someone suggested
> > earlier, but think about why that should happen:
> >
> > Abrasion from sand being blown through the building.
> > Abrasion from tourist feet.
>
> You missed one: because it was built that way.

Um - sorry, we're talking about two totally different things here. Consider this
a misunderstanding on my side.

Post a reply to this message

wow, the floor adds a remarkable amount to the realism

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.49bd163aa53135e3219167190@news.povray.org...
> Honestly, physical erosion never occurred to me, and certainly wasn't the 
> look I
> was going for. I don't understand how it could happen that way, either - 
> the
> edges of the inner courtyard floor are far too sharp for a slow erosion. I
> think this is clearly a deliberately raised, paved gallery around a bare 
> inner
> floor, which might even be the unmodified floor level from before the 
> building
> was put up.

There are a couple of interesting developments here.

1) the lowered courtyard (or raised gallery if you wish) is often created 
for a simple practical reason: rainfall. If you do not want the gallery to 
be flooded, just raise it above the court yard level. This is also true for 
regions with little rainfall (but huge quantities of rain at once).

2) What Clipka suggests (abrasion by tourist feet) would be nice to pursue. 
Between the columns, the flagstones should indeed be hollowed out by years 
of use.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> There are a couple of interesting developments here.
>
> 1) the lowered courtyard (or raised gallery if you wish) is often created
> for a simple practical reason: rainfall. If you do not want the gallery to
> be flooded, just raise it above the court yard level. This is also true for
> regions with little rainfall (but huge quantities of rain at once).

Good point. However, I wish you hadn't mentioned this, bacause now I feel that
maybe I should put some drains and guttering into the gallery floor! Argh! ;-)

> 2) What Clipka suggests (abrasion by tourist feet) would be nice to pursue.
> Between the columns, the flagstones should indeed be hollowed out by years
> of use.

Indeed. While this would be an interesting challenge, I shan't be pursuing it in
this scene, because a) I think it will be very difficult :P and b) I'm after an
abandoned look, untouched by tourism.

Bill

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.49be1971a53135e36dd25f0b0@news.povray.org...
> "Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
>> There are a couple of interesting developments here.
>>
>> 1) the lowered courtyard (or raised gallery if you wish) is often created
>> for a simple practical reason: rainfall. If you do not want the gallery 
>> to
>> be flooded, just raise it above the court yard level. This is also true 
>> for
>> regions with little rainfall (but huge quantities of rain at once).
>
> Good point. However, I wish you hadn't mentioned this, bacause now I feel 
> that
> maybe I should put some drains and guttering into the gallery floor! Argh! 
> ;-)

Life is hard...

>
>> 2) What Clipka suggests (abrasion by tourist feet) would be nice to 
>> pursue.
>> Between the columns, the flagstones should indeed be hollowed out by 
>> years
>> of use.
>
> Indeed. While this would be an interesting challenge, I shan't be pursuing 
> it in
> this scene, because a) I think it will be very difficult :P and b) I'm 
> after an
> abandoned look, untouched by tourism.

Good. However, even with tourists thrown out (they have no business here 
anyway I believe) the building has been in use for many years in the past, I 
assume. That would also wear the stones down... Let us say that this is some 
future aspect to tackle :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> > abandoned look, untouched by tourism.
> Good. However, even with tourists thrown out (they have no business here
> anyway I believe) the building has been in use for many years in the past, I
> assume. That would also wear the stones down...

....but no... this building has apparently been abandoned since shortly after
construction, just like the rest of the civilisation that built it... there are
no human remains, very few artifacts, strange shapes in the grass, and the
parrots all fly upside down... what happened here...? who knows...

*spooky noises*

;-)

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.49be2668a53135e36dd25f0b0@news.povray.org...
>
> ....but no... this building has apparently been abandoned since shortly 
> after
> construction, just like the rest of the civilisation that built it... 
> there are
> no human remains, very few artifacts, strange shapes in the grass, and the
> parrots all fly upside down... what happened here...? who knows...
>
> *spooky noises*
>

"Curiouser and curiouser!"

Thomas

Post a reply to this message