"ryan constantine" <rco### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:394D4A98.F4A094E1@yahoo.com...
> by complicated i mean a single model that can't be put together with
> functions, macros, or randomization. trees, grass etc. are complicated,
> but i don't think of them as the same kind of models. to me they are
> more like environmental constructs (which make the surroundings of where
> a model goes). clouds and skies are another example of things that are
> complicated, but don't fit into my personal view of a model. of course,
> anyone that can make any of the above items realistically, has praise
> from me.


I'd rather speak of each person preference and ability to use one tool or
the other. For the same model, you will find people who prefer (for whatever
reason) to use different tools. I believe in an user-tool-model relation
rather then just model-tool.


Also, I do not get the usage / type of model -> type of tool relationship
you are explaining. I understand a type of model (+person) -> tool
relationship. Trees and grass and clouds clearly do present the same kind of
difficulties to model when compared to (for example) a camera and hence a
similarity of tools / techniques. But I do not believe it is because these
objects are or aren't the focus of a scene.


Povingly,


Philippe

Post a reply to this message