|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> Yeah. In that case you'd have to use a sphere-sweep [which is inexplicably
> slow for no defined reason].
And how many points would you put in the spline that your sphere-sweep was
following?
>> But how to do the rounded edge then? Matching up a round with the
>> vertical sides (actually they're slightly off-vertical) of the button
>> with the curved top surface doesn't sound very easy to me.
>
> It does to me, but hey...
Ermmm, ok, here's my button then, show me how to add a round and/or bevel to
the top (+y) of it:
difference
{
cone{ <0,0,0> 8 <0,5,0> 7}
sphere{ <0,50,0> 46 }
scale <1,1,0.75>
}
> Yes, because crude approximations
Who said anything about crude? You said a billion triangles, on a 1920x1200
screen that makes each triangle about 1/500th of a pixel.
> to cylindrical columns look so much more photo-realistic than actually
> cylindrical columns. Oh, wait...
I've never seen a mathematically perfect cylindrical column IRL before.
> Ah, well, presumably if you're doing CAD rather than just pretty pictures,
> you have *real* modelling tools. ;-)
True, but even when making pretty pictures (eg for films or posters etc) you
don't want broken reflections like that - they look ugly.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |