POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.binaries.images : Auto-buildings fisheye Server Time
6 Jul 2022 20:39:25 EDT (-0400)
  Auto-buildings fisheye (Message 1 to 5 of 5)  
From: Bill Pragnell
Subject: Auto-buildings fisheye
Date: 9 Feb 2022 13:20:00
Message: <web.6204056d37c6c03cb96893c06f35e431@news.povray.org>
I tweaked what I wanted to get a decent distribution of galleries vs buildings
(galleries per unit volume is what I wanted!), and it's looking good.
Interesting camera positions have been fruitful :)

This sort of view has made me wonder about some edge cases that are now
apparent; roofs tucked into crevices, weird overhangs etc. I don't think they're
deal-breakers but it might be nice to tweak the placement a bit more. Ideally
some supporting columns would be good when gaps on buildings are only one cell
deep, but I'm not sure that would look right in all cases so some thought will
be necessary.

I thought about adding this image to the other thread, but I think it's dramatic
enough to be a top-level post :D

Bill


Post a reply to this message


Attachments:
Download 'autobuild_fisheye.jpg' (430 KB)

Preview of image 'autobuild_fisheye.jpg'
autobuild_fisheye.jpg


 

From: William F Pokorny
Subject: Re: Auto-buildings fisheye
Date: 9 Feb 2022 20:08:02
Message: <62046572$1@news.povray.org>
On 2/9/22 13:18, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> I tweaked what I wanted to get a decent distribution of galleries vs buildings
> (galleries per unit volume is what I wanted!), and it's looking good.
> Interesting camera positions have been fruitful :)
> 
> This sort of view has made me wonder about some edge cases that are now
> apparent; roofs tucked into crevices, weird overhangs etc. I don't think they're
> deal-breakers but it might be nice to tweak the placement a bit more. Ideally
> some supporting columns would be good when gaps on buildings are only one cell
> deep, but I'm not sure that would look right in all cases so some thought will
> be necessary.
> 
> I thought about adding this image to the other thread, but I think it's dramatic
> enough to be a top-level post :D
> 
> Bill

Indeed! :-)

Bill P. (Not the first)


Post a reply to this message

From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Auto-buildings fisheye
Date: 10 Feb 2022 02:22:45
Message: <6204bd45$1@news.povray.org>
Op 09/02/2022 om 19:18 schreef Bill Pragnell:
> I tweaked what I wanted to get a decent distribution of galleries vs buildings
> (galleries per unit volume is what I wanted!), and it's looking good.
> Interesting camera positions have been fruitful :)
> 
> This sort of view has made me wonder about some edge cases that are now
> apparent; roofs tucked into crevices, weird overhangs etc. I don't think they're
> deal-breakers but it might be nice to tweak the placement a bit more. Ideally
> some supporting columns would be good when gaps on buildings are only one cell
> deep, but I'm not sure that would look right in all cases so some thought will
> be necessary.
> 
> I thought about adding this image to the other thread, but I think it's dramatic
> enough to be a top-level post :D
> 

roofs tucked into crevices: you could maybe switch any of those to a 
balcony. You would need also a door though... Alternatively, a flat roof 
would also be possible.

weird overhangs: some kind of additional support indeed; columns for one 
cell gaps, something like a half-arch strut/buttress elsewhere?

I would shudder to have to walk on one of those balconies.... ;-)

-- 
Thomas


Post a reply to this message

From: Alain Martel
Subject: Re: Auto-buildings fisheye
Date: 10 Feb 2022 11:30:05
Message: <62053d8d$1@news.povray.org>
Le 2022-02-09 à 13:18, Bill Pragnell a écrit :
> I tweaked what I wanted to get a decent distribution of galleries vs buildings
> (galleries per unit volume is what I wanted!), and it's looking good.
> Interesting camera positions have been fruitful :)
> 
> This sort of view has made me wonder about some edge cases that are now
> apparent; roofs tucked into crevices, weird overhangs etc. I don't think they're
> deal-breakers but it might be nice to tweak the placement a bit more. Ideally
> some supporting columns would be good when gaps on buildings are only one cell
> deep, but I'm not sure that would look right in all cases so some thought will
> be necessary.
> 
> I thought about adding this image to the other thread, but I think it's dramatic
> enough to be a top-level post :D
> 
> Bill

About the roofs : When there is a roof adjacent to a wall, that woof 
need to only slope away from that wall.
Also, there are many roofs making funnels. That's not advisable.


Post a reply to this message

From: Paolo Gibellini
Subject: Re: Auto-buildings fisheye
Date: 11 Feb 2022 02:18:05
Message: <62060dad$1@news.povray.org>
Il 09/02/2022 19:18, Bill Pragnell ha scritto:
 > I tweaked what I wanted to get a decent distribution of galleries vs 
buildings
 > (galleries per unit volume is what I wanted!), and it's looking good.
 > Interesting camera positions have been fruitful :)
 >
 > This sort of view has made me wonder about some edge cases that are now
 > apparent; roofs tucked into crevices, weird overhangs etc. I don't 
think they're
 > deal-breakers but it might be nice to tweak the placement a bit more. 
Ideally
 > some supporting columns would be good when gaps on buildings are only 
one cell
 > deep, but I'm not sure that would look right in all cases so some 
thought will
 > be necessary.
 >
 > I thought about adding this image to the other thread, but I think 
it's dramatic
 > enough to be a top-level post :D
 >
 > Bill

Now it seems a building starship...

You can also put impluviums or rooftop pools.

A nice work!
Paolo


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2021 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.