Hi Folks,
    Well, for those who were so nice in their praise of my clouds,
here's a (slightly cleaned up and annotated) copy of the source ;-)

    All the best,
        Mike Andrews.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'clouds.pov.txt' (4 KB)

Michael Andrews wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>     Well, for those who were so nice in their praise of my clouds,
> here's a (slightly cleaned up and annotated) copy of the source ;-)
>
>     All the best,
>         Mike Andrews.

I haven't said anything nice yet but there is always
a time to start. Awesome dude. Great stuff.
Hey who is that guy ?

    Enough of the frivolity. I had one question for
you concerning your clouds. Did you notice,
when you were creating the clouds, if over scaling
of the media cause problems with maintaining the
density of the clouds ? I have seen some evidence
of this and I have heard a rather irate pov user
cursing this behavior. I was just wondering how
you got around it.

Any way thanks for the opportunity to look at
your file. I'll should have it totally screwed up
within the hour.

Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:

> Michael Andrews wrote:
>
> > Hi Folks,
> >     Well, for those who were so nice in their praise of my clouds,
> > here's a (slightly cleaned up and annotated) copy of the source ;-)
> >
> >     All the best,
> >         Mike Andrews.
>
> I haven't said anything nice yet but there is always
> a time to start. Awesome dude. Great stuff.
> Hey who is that guy ?
>

 Ahhh! Such praise! I blush from head to toe! 8-)

>     Enough of the frivolity. I had one question for
> you concerning your clouds. Did you notice,
> when you were creating the clouds, if over scaling
> of the media cause problems with maintaining the
> density of the clouds ? I have seen some evidence
> of this and I have heard a rather irate pov user
> cursing this behavior. I was just wondering how
> you got around it.
>

    I haven't really had such a problem. You have to remember that the
media density stays constant (I believe) no matter what the scaling, like
the later incarnation of halos. All that I usually find to be needed is
to change the base colour inversely with scale.    So, if  emission
<1,0.4,0.2> works at a scale of 1, then emission <1,0.4,0.2>/10 should
work at a scale of 10. Similarly with absorption and scattering.
    If this isn't the effect you mean then I'm afraid I'm at a loss. Can
you define the problem a bit more?

> Any way thanks for the opportunity to look at
> your file. I'll should have it totally screwed up
> within the hour.
>
> Ken Tyler

    You're welcome! It took me about 20min to get it tidy enough to post,
so an hour to mess it up is probably being pessimistic ... although, with
the speed it renders at, maybe not! :-/

    Happy rendering!
        Mike Andrews.

Post a reply to this message

[snip]
>
>Hi Folks,
>    Well, for those who were so nice in their praise of my clouds,
>here's a (slightly cleaned up and annotated) copy of the source ;-)
>
>    All the best,
>        Mike Andrews.
>
[snip]

Well I've yet to manage to render the whole scene - grief it's taking
ages (hours and hours) on my P233 with MMX and 64MB of RAM - but so
far it looks thoroughly gorgeous. Excellent.

This one scene is probably the best "proof" example for saying that
POV-Ray can produce photo-realistic images that I've seen to date. As
with Chris Colefax's include files, I'm left humbled yet again :)


Cheers,

Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/7855/
PS change ".duffnet" to ".net" if replying via e-mail

Post a reply to this message

How would you scale this up to be done in feet, rather than miles? I thought
I had it figured out by multiplying the appropriate items by 5280, but the
sky is deep red and I cannot see the clouds. When I started everything was
black. I wonder if my density is off, now?

Jon

Michael Andrews wrote in message
<3610BB31.BFD7CE0E@remove-this.reading.ac.uk>...
>Hi Folks,
>    Well, for those who were so nice in their praise of my clouds,
>here's a (slightly cleaned up and annotated) copy of the source ;-)
>
>    All the best,
>        Mike Andrews.
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Yes, your density is probably off.  Maybe decreasing it by a factor of 5280
will correct the problem (and maybe not)... It's worth a try.

-nathan

Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> 
> How would you scale this up to be done in feet, rather than miles? I thought
> I had it figured out by multiplying the appropriate items by 5280, but the
> sky is deep red and I cannot see the clouds. When I started everything was
> black. I wonder if my density is off, now?
> 
> Jon

Post a reply to this message

Nathan Kopp wrote in message <361E49AF.3F688077@ltu.edu>...
>Yes, your density is probably off.  Maybe decreasing it by a factor of 5280
>will correct the problem (and maybe not)... It's worth a try.


That might be true. The density is part of the object. I have scaled the
object up by 5280. I guess I would not need to scale up the density, as
well. It's hard to tell, it's still new to me. I am not sure how Michael
Andrews designed the atmosphere and clouds. I'll try dividing by 5280,
though.

Jon

Post a reply to this message

Jon Berndt wrote:
> 
> Nathan Kopp wrote in message <361E49AF.3F688077@ltu.edu>...
> >Yes, your density is probably off.  Maybe decreasing it by a factor of 5280
> >will correct the problem (and maybe not)... It's worth a try.
> 
> That might be true. The density is part of the object. I have scaled the
> object up by 5280. I guess I would not need to scale up the density, as
> well. It's hard to tell, it's still new to me. I am not sure how Michael
> Andrews designed the atmosphere and clouds. I'll try dividing by 5280,
> though.
> 
> Jon

From my own experiments it does seem density does not obey scaling as
other objects. It seems it must be adjusted in addition to scalings.

-- 
Lewis A. Sellers: writer and contract Multimedia Website Developer
mailto:lse### [at] usitnet (The Fourth Millennium Foundation)
http://www.public.usit.net/lsellers/ & http://www.intrafoundation.com
http://brain-of-pooh.tech-soft.com/users/critters/bios/sellers_lewis.html

You can bug the living bejesus out of me live on ICQ @ 491461
(If I don't get back to you within a month, I'm out of prozac in some
dark corner somewhere screaming things quite unintelligable but -- most
curiously -- thick with a sumerian accent.)

"The comedy is over" -i pagliacci

Post a reply to this message

I am working on an animation where one large plane is flying through the
air.

I would like to add some realistic clouds and ... thunder. Any ideas how
this can be done? The thunder does not have te be visible directly. Just the
illumination on the clouds. (I saw this in the movie 7 days, 7 nights).

Looking at the cloud examples in this group I wonder if I am able to do it.
I am unfamiliar with the media type. Are some examples of this available? Or
tips on how to do it?


"Michael Andrews" <M.C### [at] remove-thisreadingacuk> wrote in message
news:3610BB31.BFD7CE0E@remove-this.reading.ac.uk...
> Hi Folks,
>     Well, for those who were so nice in their praise of my clouds,
> here's a (slightly cleaned up and annotated) copy of the source ;-)
>
>     All the best,
>         Mike Andrews.
>
>

Post a reply to this message