Jim Charter wrote:
> I understand what you are asking and there may be something to the idea
> that learning to use script would somehow provide fundamentals of
> insight that would be beneficial when learning a modeller that rides on
> top of the script.  But honestly, my experience was that I used what was
> the most facile for me use at any given point in time.  Sometimes a gui

	Yes, the idea of starting from the bottom up used to appeal to me
greatly earlier (I'm a math/theoretical physics/engineering person).
However, the attitude of just getting the job done is occasionally
dominant now.

	I should have said in my initial post that the question was not
intended for objects like meshes and patches - I think they were more or
less meant to be done by other utilities. My worry is that if I rely too
heavily on those utilities, I'll end up using them to create items I
could easily make using CSG in POV-Ray.

	I like programming, and I like math. I'm also much below average when
it comes to drawing (by hand). Raytracing was my first experience where
I could make images I liked (even using the computer). I like the whole
"setup" of raytracing. I like to be able to build each object at a time,
placed at the origin, at some unit scale, and then do the necessary
transformations when I'm putting it altogether.

	I haven't worked too hard with other software. They're a bit less
intuitive to me, perhaps because of my general inability to draw. JPatch
is easy to use, though. It's just that I keep struggling with issues
such as when I export to POV-Ray, the item I created is not centered,
not to the right scale, etc. Fixing that is a pain. I'm sure
JPatch/other software could remedy this problem easily, but I don't know
how.

	I looked at Blender and it seemed like quite a bit to bite on. I don't
really have much time, so if I were to learn to use a utility, it'd have
to be something I can just fiddle with 1-2 hours a week, and remember
the salient details that I learned after a whole week has gone by. I'm
not sure that's doable with Blender if you're a beginner.

	Haven't tried Wings3D.

	I use Linux, and that in itself is a constraint.

	However, I think the points given have been well taken, and I
appreciate them. I can see how one can get a better feel for the various
interpolation schemes using other utilities (where you can get more or
less instant feedback).

> In terms of other elements like texturing and lighting I have always

	I was actually only asking about modeling the shape, not texture. But
since you mention it:

	Is there any site where all the patterns are explained in detail (i.e.
shown). I'm thinking of something along the lines of:

http://www-public.tu-bs.de:8080/~y0013390/pov/cr_metric.html

	Where the pattern is "shown" in detail for various parameters. That
would be immensely helpful. A lot of the patterns in the documentation
are described mathematically, but I think images will make it easier to
see the effect of the math and various parameters.

> But I tend to view learning in a open-ended way. The "fundamentals up"
> makes sense of course but I think it is overrated.

	Well, I would say, "not very effective". I guess one needs a blend of
both, as long as it is made clear what is fundamental and what isn't.

-- 
When an agnostic dies, does he go to the "great perhaps"?


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message