yesbird <sya### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 08/03/2023 08:09, Mike Miller wrote:
> > Fish underwater blob topo with pipes and flanges.
> > Needs a bit of cleanup to remove some parsing errors.
> > Mostly a material and scene idea study.
>
> It's seems to me that attachment missed.
> --
> YB

Yep...had to resample the bitmaps. Posted a new file. Should be on its way. :)

Post a reply to this message

yesbird <sya### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 08/03/2023 08:09, Mike Miller wrote:
> > Fish underwater blob topo with pipes and flanges.
> > Needs a bit of cleanup to remove some parsing errors.
> > Mostly a material and scene idea study.
>
> It's seems to me that attachment missed.
> --
> YB

Also, a bit of warning.

The 'populate' macros are slow to process with the amount of objects I'm using.
Not well optimized - could us some type of culling to remove unseen plants.

The random scale factor needs tweaked. I messed it up but like the size
variations, so I left it for this rendering. :)

Post a reply to this message

On 08/03/2023 08:37, Mike Miller wrote:
> The 'populate' macros are slow to process with the amount of objects I'm using.
> Not well optimized - could us some type of culling to remove unseen plants.

I will think about it, some optimization is always necessary.
Write now I can suggest bounded_by:
https://wiki.povray.org/content/Reference:Bounded_By_Object_Modifier

if you still not using it. It's very effective for the scenes with large
amount small objects with complex shapes.
--
YB

Post a reply to this message

yesbird <sya### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> ..some optimization is always necessary.
> Write now I can suggest bounded_by:
> https://wiki.povray.org/content/Reference:Bounded_By_Object_Modifier
>
> if you still not using it. It's very effective for the scenes with large
> amount small objects with complex shapes.
> --

It's possible that certain versions of POV-ray mistakenly remove any manual
bounding shapes that a user adds. I remember reading something about this in old
newsgroup posts, but I am not knowledgeable on the subject. Maybe someone else
can give a more definitive answer?

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Miller" <mil### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> The 'populate' macros are slow to process with the amount of objects I'm using.
> Not well optimized - could us some type of culling to remove unseen plants.

I tried something like this - I determined what the view frustum was, and then
IIRC did some my own home-brew insidedness tests.

http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/message/%3Cweb.587ce70b1652a4dcc437ac910%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3Cweb.587
ce70b1652a4dcc437ac910%40news.povray.org%3E

- BW

Post a reply to this message

"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> "Mike Miller" <mil### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> > The 'populate' macros are slow to process with the amount of objects I'm using.
> > Not well optimized - could us some type of culling to remove unseen plants.
>
> I tried something like this - I determined what the view frustum was, and then
> IIRC did some my own home-brew insidedness tests.
>
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/message/%3Cweb.587ce70b1652a4dcc437ac910%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3Cweb.5
87
> ce70b1652a4dcc437ac910%40news.povray.org%3E
>
> - BW

Thanks BW.
I like that idea - using the cameras frustum shape for an inside/outside test.
Using the cameras' hither and yon planes for space partitioning. BSP?

Post a reply to this message

Op 8-3-2023 om 14:59 schreef Mike Miller:
> "Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>> "Mike Miller" <mil### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>
>>> The 'populate' macros are slow to process with the amount of objects I'm using.
>>> Not well optimized - could us some type of culling to remove unseen plants.
>>
>> I tried something like this - I determined what the view frustum was, and then
>> IIRC did some my own home-brew insidedness tests.
>>
>>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/message/%3Cweb.587ce70b1652a4dcc437ac910%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3Cweb.5
> 87
>> ce70b1652a4dcc437ac910%40news.povray.org%3E
>>
>> - BW
> 
> Thanks BW.
> I like that idea - using the cameras frustum shape for an inside/outside test.
> Using the cameras' hither and yon planes for space partitioning. BSP?
> 

In another age, long, long ago early in this century, Gilles Tran wrote 
a macro doing just that. I have always used it since then. I attach it 
here. I must have a demo scene somewhere too... I shall try to find it 
tomorrow.

Note: The prefix GT_ is a code referring to the original author. It is a 
way I use to remember who wrote the code ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'gt_visibilitytest.mcr.txt' (2 KB)

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Op 8-3-2023 om 14:59 schreef Mike Miller:
> > "Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> >> "Mike Miller" <mil### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The 'populate' macros are slow to process with the amount of objects I'm using.
> >>> Not well optimized - could us some type of culling to remove unseen plants.
> >>
> >> I tried something like this - I determined what the view frustum was, and then
> >> IIRC did some my own home-brew insidedness tests.
> >>
> >>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/message/%3Cweb.587ce70b1652a4dcc437ac910%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3Cwe
b.5
> > 87
> >> ce70b1652a4dcc437ac910%40news.povray.org%3E
> >>
> >> - BW
> >
> > Thanks BW.
> > I like that idea - using the cameras frustum shape for an inside/outside test.
> > Using the cameras' hither and yon planes for space partitioning. BSP?
> >
>
> In another age, long, long ago early in this century, Gilles Tran wrote
> a macro doing just that. I have always used it since then. I attach it
> here. I must have a demo scene somewhere too... I shall try to find it
> tomorrow.
>
> Note: The prefix GT_ is a code referring to the original author. It is a
> way I use to remember who wrote the code ;-)
>
> --
> Thomas

Thanks Thomas. Very nice - big help.
Objects not seen by the camera but reflecting in visible surfaces could present
a problem. I guess you could 'add-back' objects not seen but within a distance
of the frustum - if that object type was important to the reflections in the
view.
Mike.

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Miller" <mil### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> Thanks BW.
> I like that idea - using the cameras frustum shape for an inside/outside test.
> Using the cameras' hither and yon planes for space partitioning. BSP?

Nope.  I'm currently too ignorant and unskilled to implement a BSP.  ;)

IIRC, it was just a check to see which side of the 6 planes that bounded the
View Frustum the selected point was on.  Simple.  Fast.

I suppose there might be a way to convert the frustum into a signed distance
function (SDF) and do it that way.   It would be slick, and then you'd have the
distance calculation integrated into each check as well.

- BW

Post a reply to this message

Op 08/03/2023 om 17:37 schreef Mike Miller:
> Thanks Thomas. Very nice - big help.
> Objects not seen by the camera but reflecting in visible surfaces could present
> a problem. I guess you could 'add-back' objects not seen but within a distance
> of the frustum - if that object type was important to the reflections in the
> view.
> Mike.
> 
> 
Indeed. It does not happen often, but then... ;-)

Found the demo. Attached (the macro is written out in the scene again; 
can be replaced by a call to the external macro file of course).

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'gt_visibilitytest.pov.txt' (5 KB)