 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> And better yet, using VRand_In_Obj()
>
>
> --
> Thomas
These are fun - and so comparatively easy to make compared to other types of
scenes!
I was wondering what your "yield" was in terms of successful placement of random
points inside. I did a few real quick experiments, and it seemed like I was
getting _very_ sparse coverage. I did a (Success/TotalTests)*100 calculation,
and got 1.4%.
I like the [rusted] wire boxes :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-11-2017 14:03, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> And better yet, using VRand_In_Obj()
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
>
> These are fun - and so comparatively easy to make compared to other types of
> scenes!
Yes, one has no merit at all :-)
>
> I was wondering what your "yield" was in terms of successful placement of random
> points inside. I did a few real quick experiments, and it seemed like I was
> getting _very_ sparse coverage. I did a (Success/TotalTests)*100 calculation,
> and got 1.4%.
I don't know about yield. Using VRand_In_Obj() that should be 100%,
shouldn't it? Anyway, I just increase or decrease the number of objects
and judge the result.
My main focus now is to get a "better" (?) coverage of the arms and legs
compared to the body. They seem to be more sparsely populated. So, my
idea was to use an additional test: function {pow(f_boxed(x,y,z),2)}
provided by Christian Froeschlin some years ago, and thus concentrate
the objects more towards the periphery than towards the centre. However,
I am not sure what I am doing and I have difficulty scaling this to the
correct proportions of the body. Any suggestions there would help me.
>
> I like the [rusted] wire boxes :)
>
Me too.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/11/2017 07:54, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
> My main focus now is to get a "better" (?) coverage of the arms and legs
> compared to the body. They seem to be more sparsely populated. So, my
> idea was to use an additional test: function {pow(f_boxed(x,y,z),2)}
> provided by Christian Froeschlin some years ago, and thus concentrate
> the objects more towards the periphery than towards the centre. However,
> I am not sure what I am doing and I have difficulty scaling this to the
> correct proportions of the body. Any suggestions there would help me.
>
Could you split your analysis into body part groups? That might give yo
more control over the sizes of the "filler" boxes.
>>
>>
>
> Me too.
>
Reflective spheres would be interesting, I think. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21-11-2017 10:31, Stephen wrote:
> On 21/11/2017 07:54, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>>
>> My main focus now is to get a "better" (?) coverage of the arms and
>> legs compared to the body. They seem to be more sparsely populated.
>> So, my idea was to use an additional test: function
>> {pow(f_boxed(x,y,z),2)} provided by Christian Froeschlin some years
>> ago, and thus concentrate the objects more towards the periphery than
>> towards the centre. However, I am not sure what I am doing and I have
>> difficulty scaling this to the correct proportions of the body. Any
>> suggestions there would help me.
>>
>
> Could you split your analysis into body part groups? That might give yo
> more control over the sizes of the "filler" boxes.
That would be one option indeed. I keep that for when all else fails. ;-)
>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Me too.
>>
>
> Reflective spheres would be interesting, I think. :-)
>
Oh yes, and blobs (reflective or not) too.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/11/2017 11:43, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 21-11-2017 10:31, Stephen wrote:
>> On 21/11/2017 07:54, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> My main focus now is to get a "better" (?) coverage of the arms and
>>> legs compared to the body. They seem to be more sparsely populated.
>>> So, my idea was to use an additional test: function
>>> {pow(f_boxed(x,y,z),2)} provided by Christian Froeschlin some years
>>> ago, and thus concentrate the objects more towards the periphery than
>>> towards the centre. However, I am not sure what I am doing and I have
>>> difficulty scaling this to the correct proportions of the body. Any
>>> suggestions there would help me.
>>>
>>
>> Could you split your analysis into body part groups? That might give
>> yo more control over the sizes of the "filler" boxes.
>
> That would be one option indeed. I keep that for when all else fails. ;-)
>
It sounds like a lot of work. ;-)
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Me too.
>>>
>>
>> Reflective spheres would be interesting, I think. :-)
>>
>
> Oh yes, and blobs (reflective or not) too.
>
Blobs! yes. :-D
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/11/2017 11:53, Stephen wrote:
> It sounds like a lot of work. ;-)
Depending on the model and how many groups it is exported as.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21-11-2017 12:54, Stephen wrote:
> On 21/11/2017 11:53, Stephen wrote:
>> It sounds like a lot of work. ;-)
>
> Depending on the model and how many groups it is exported as.
>
>
Poseray is your friend
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/11/2017 12:17, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 21-11-2017 12:54, Stephen wrote:
>> On 21/11/2017 11:53, Stephen wrote:
>>> It sounds like a lot of work. ;-)
>>
>> Depending on the model and how many groups it is exported as.
>>
>>
>
> Poseray is your friend
>
Poser is your friend's friend. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> > I was wondering what your "yield" was in terms of successful placement of random
> > points inside. I did a few real quick experiments, and it seemed like I was
> > getting _very_ sparse coverage. I did a (Success/TotalTests)*100 calculation,
> > and got 1.4%.
>
> I don't know about yield. Using VRand_In_Obj() that should be 100%,
> shouldn't it? Anyway, I just increase or decrease the number of objects
> and judge the result.
Yes, I was just testing a vector in the bounding box.
IIRC VRand_In_Object() is part of an iclude file, so it just does pretty much
the same thing - the success/fail process is just hidden.
> My main focus now is to get a "better" (?) coverage of the arms and legs
> compared to the body. They seem to be more sparsely populated. So, my
> idea was to use an additional test: function {pow(f_boxed(x,y,z),2)}
> provided by Christian Froeschlin some years ago, and thus concentrate
> the objects more towards the periphery than towards the centre. However,
> I am not sure what I am doing and I have difficulty scaling this to the
> correct proportions of the body. Any suggestions there would help me.
Right - I noticed the same problem.
I thought about that and naturally what Stephen suggested is the most obvious
solution.
Your function-based approach is something that could work, though I was thinking
of something more cylindrical / spherical / egg-shaped and centered on the body
trunk.
Alternatively, you could use an x-y-z nested loop of smaller testing boxes and
cycle through a random placement in all of those smaller boxes.
It would, of course, be VERY nice if someone in-the-know could hammer out some
sort of octree macro/include file that made some sense to those of us who
haven't had the time to puzzle all of that out yet.
Along those lines, you could build an array to store coordinates, "scan" the
bounding box of the figure with an x-y-z nested loop and inside(object, vector)
tests, and then use the pseudorandom selection process to pick known inside()
points.
The advantage there is that you could save the array to disk, and not have to
test the same figure every single time you wanted to place objects. You
wouldn't even need to load the mesh for the figure either.
So far, my whole weekend has been major SNAFU, so I haven't had mush time to
fiddle with many of the things I've wanted to. :(
Hopefully the rest of the week/weekend won't be FUBAR.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21-11-2017 13:52, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
>>> I was wondering what your "yield" was in terms of successful placement of random
>>> points inside. I did a few real quick experiments, and it seemed like I was
>>> getting _very_ sparse coverage. I did a (Success/TotalTests)*100 calculation,
>>> and got 1.4%.
>>
>> I don't know about yield. Using VRand_In_Obj() that should be 100%,
>> shouldn't it? Anyway, I just increase or decrease the number of objects
>> and judge the result.
>
> Yes, I was just testing a vector in the bounding box.
> IIRC VRand_In_Object() is part of an iclude file, so it just does pretty much
> the same thing - the success/fail process is just hidden.
I seem to remember now that that is the way it works indeed.
>
>> My main focus now is to get a "better" (?) coverage of the arms and legs
>> compared to the body. They seem to be more sparsely populated. So, my
>> idea was to use an additional test: function {pow(f_boxed(x,y,z),2)}
>> provided by Christian Froeschlin some years ago, and thus concentrate
>> the objects more towards the periphery than towards the centre. However,
>> I am not sure what I am doing and I have difficulty scaling this to the
>> correct proportions of the body. Any suggestions there would help me.
>
> Right - I noticed the same problem.
> I thought about that and naturally what Stephen suggested is the most obvious
> solution.
In the end, that is probably what I am going to do. My other experiments
give interesting results but not entirely to my liking, and I prefer to
concentrate on more interesting things ;-)
> Your function-based approach is something that could work, though I was thinking
> of something more cylindrical / spherical / egg-shaped and centered on the body
> trunk.
>
> Alternatively, you could use an x-y-z nested loop of smaller testing boxes and
> cycle through a random placement in all of those smaller boxes.
>
> It would, of course, be VERY nice if someone in-the-know could hammer out some
> sort of octree macro/include file that made some sense to those of us who
> haven't had the time to puzzle all of that out yet.
>
> Along those lines, you could build an array to store coordinates, "scan" the
> bounding box of the figure with an x-y-z nested loop and inside(object, vector)
> tests, and then use the pseudorandom selection process to pick known inside()
> points.
> The advantage there is that you could save the array to disk, and not have to
> test the same figure every single time you wanted to place objects. You
> wouldn't even need to load the mesh for the figure either.
I am not going to dive too deep into this as it rapidly becomes unknown
territory to me, but nonetheless I am grateful for the suggestions.
>
> So far, my whole weekend has been major SNAFU, so I haven't had mush time to
> fiddle with many of the things I've wanted to. :(
>
> Hopefully the rest of the week/weekend won't be FUBAR.
>
Best wishes for that indeed. I have a couple of minor SNAFUs myself at
present which need sorted out (well, ideally, they /should/ sort
themselves out eventually). RL... :-/
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
