"alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> The more I look at it, hmm, desktop material.

The concept - yes, definitely.

The quality - I'm afraid no, not at all.

Get some better starfield (upon close inspection, you can tell it's a snapshot
from a screensaver). A MUCH better one. Add some subtle lens flares.

And by all means, DO move that interstellar ride out of sight...

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> > The more I look at it, hmm, desktop material.
>
> The concept - yes, definitely.
>
> The quality - I'm afraid no, not at all.
>
> Get some better starfield (upon close inspection, you can tell it's a snapshot
> from a screensaver). A MUCH better one. Add some subtle lens flares.
>
> And by all means, DO move that interstellar ride out of sight...

upon close inspection of the code, there's is nothing else like THESE stars,
since I wrote and designed every aspect of MY STARS!

sheesh, clean those specs er sumthin

they were 50% flare and 70% glow and star size factor of 10, so small that
flares are barely noticeable


#declare StarSz = 10;              // 0-30 size [10] 0=off
#include "Flam_Bayer.inc"
#declare FlareStars = 50;           // 0-100 percent
#declare GlowStars = 70;

can you spell ...

the ride is leavin soon

Post a reply to this message

"alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> upon close inspection of the code, there's is nothing else like THESE stars,
> since I wrote and designed every aspect of MY STARS!

Yeah, sure. Then what may *this* be...? ;)

One of many such artifacts, if one bothers to take a closer look; to me, they
bear striking resemblance to some Gnome "flying windows"-clone screensaver.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'screensaver.png' (207 KB)

Preview of image 'screensaver.png'

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

> Get some better starfield (upon close inspection, you can tell it's a snapshot
> from a screensaver). A MUCH better one. Add some subtle lens flares.


Enlarged stars for the impaired:

#declare StarSz = 22;              // 0-30 size [10] 0=off
#include "Flam_Bayer.inc"
#declare FlareStars = 50;           // 0-100 percent
#declare GlowStars = 70;              // 0-100 percent
#declare BackStars = 0;             // 0 or 1 off/on
#declare StarLabels = 0;            // 0-100 percent

#declare MessLabels = 0;            // 0 or 1 off/on
#declare SpiralMess = 0.40;         //  0-1 size  [.25]

Copy lands with a loud thud and a random 4-7 flare count

Toady clueless assumption filed under useless screensavers

Maybe I just turned up that screensaver's star scale and recapped, I mean
there's no code to prove it, or is there? Not when those mouthing off are
allergic to clicking links and investigating the topic.

Glow and flare ratio is still a variable in development, not thought about for a
year or more.

Most recently noticed glow size of the sun inconsistent with visual lunar radius
from earth, that is why it is now more accurately sized here in this shot,
because it has been changed; there always seems to another thing to do.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'pld_marsc03.png' (550 KB)

Preview of image 'pld_marsc03.png'

"alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> Maybe I just turned up that screensaver's star scale and recapped, I mean
> there's no code to prove it, or is there? Not when those mouthing off are
> allergic to clicking links and investigating the topic.

If that is indeed a POV-generated starfield, all the worse - because it still
*looks* like one of those ugly screensavers; anyone should die of shame within,
say, 30 minutes, for selling *such* yucky stuff for stars :P...

So my primary demand remains: Get a *MUCH* better starfield! Something at least
*remotely* realistic.

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> > Maybe I just turned up that screensaver's star scale and recapped, I mean
> > there's no code to prove it, or is there? Not when those mouthing off are
> > allergic to clicking links and investigating the topic.
>
> If that is indeed a POV-generated starfield, all the worse - because it still
> *looks* like one of those ugly screensavers; anyone should die of shame within,
> say, 30 minutes, for selling *such* yucky stuff for stars :P...
>
> So my primary demand remains: Get a *MUCH* better starfield! Something at least
> *remotely* realistic.


I wrote about realism before, not going to do it again, just laugh out loud.
Where's your starfield? Or would that be TOO funny.

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

> If that is indeed a POV-generated starfield,
 No I am just BSin' 'bout it all. There's no planetarium5.zip, I lied.

I am beginnning to believe a prescription lens is in order. Not an eye lens but
a brain lense. I invented, er wrote after given the secret, the hemisphere
tuning device based in Maxwell theory, removed from academia because they
didn't want you to have such a powerful gift. Those in need often display the
symptom of one bad eye.

Get that link allergy treated and the gift is yours.

Post a reply to this message

"alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> I wrote about realism before, not going to do it again, just laugh out loud.
> Where's your starfield? Or would that be TOO funny.

Must have missed the part about realism in your blog. Or you formulated it in a
rather incomprehensible manner; sometimes it's hard to get the message of your
posts.

As for my own starfield, at least I know it wouldn't be composed of shapes that
don't even *remotely* look like stars. And it would have a good deal less color
contrast.
Not that I'd have any shot in the pipeline asking for a starfield, so I guess
you have to wait a bit to see mine.

Post a reply to this message

"alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>  No I am just BSin' 'bout it all. There's no planetarium5.zip, I lied.

Ah, that's why... good to know.


> Get that link allergy treated and the gift is yours.

What link allergy? Didn't see many links recently in this blog of yours (not
that I read or even remember every post, to be honest; it gets a bit boring
over time).

Ah, and get some humor please. Didn't want to hurt your feelings, but currently
you seem to be asking for it, so I'll do you the favor.

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

> Ah, and get some humor please. Didn't want to hurt your feelings, but currently
> you seem to be asking for it, so I'll do you the favor.

Ah! I been doing nothing but laughin at your ignorance and stupidity while
trying not to hurt your 3 and a half eye feelings. You couldn't hurt my
feelings even if you were real person with a valid opinion. You're nothing but
a 3.5-eye terd chip of the ol' DNA challenged block.

If you say you don't like something I draw, I know its perfect and you're a lame
jealous fool. Its suprising you havn't stolen my work and called it your own.

Post a reply to this message