>> I hate the
>> imprecision of most 3d software I have tried. I suppose I have some
>> degree
>> of OCD going on because that imprecision bothers the heck out of me.
>>
>
> I have a Big Giant Truckload of OCD going on and that imprecision is
> _precisely_ what bothers me.

Sounds like you two would be better off with a CAD modeller rather than 
a mesh-based modeller. Draw what you like, but then you can 
constrain/dimension features, either with precise numerical values or 
equations/scripts.

For example, it's quite common to have a generic model of a screw, with 
parameters for length and diameter. The model is created in such a way 
that just changing those two parameters updates the model instantly.

Post a reply to this message

"Sherry K. Shaw" <ten### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
> >
> > Well, I am going to spend some more time in Blender. To see what I can
> > break. ;-)
> >
>
> Speaking ex cathedra as a developer here:
>
> ALWAYS the best test of any software.  :)
>
> --Sherry Shaw
>
> --
> #macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
> .3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
> 1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
> [1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

We must not forget that Mr and I do not suggest you abandon the tradition.
Using Blender, you can connect your handwritten codes in the overall scene.
Also, on the contrary, you can write your hands onstage and play the file you
created in Blender. We are expanding the opportunities are not limited to one.
:)

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> I hate the
> >> imprecision of most 3d software I have tried. I suppose I have some
> >> degree
> >> of OCD going on because that imprecision bothers the heck out of me.
> >>
> >
> > I have a Big Giant Truckload of OCD going on and that imprecision is
> > _precisely_ what bothers me.
>
> Sounds like you two would be better off with a CAD modeller rather than
> a mesh-based modeller. Draw what you like, but then you can
> constrain/dimension features, either with precise numerical values or
> equations/scripts.
>
> For example, it's quite common to have a generic model of a screw, with
> parameters for length and diameter. The model is created in such a way
> that just changing those two parameters updates the model instantly.

We can do an instant update. This is where Povray-users will use Blender. :))))
Superellipsoid, supertorus and so on...


> Stephen wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, I am going to spend some more time in Blender. To see what I can
>> break. ;-)

You could ask me and Mr...

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

>
> Maybe someone should get involved with Blender UI development, and
> implement an alternative UI for noobs, exposing only a subset of the
> features, to give new users some guidance what features they really
> need. Wings 3D does that (or at least did when I last used it), and I
> really liked it.

This could be a continuation of my idea. I chose the fox-toolkit, because it is
the fastest and has the support of opengl. The examples in the source code shows
how to select objects, move them. Start there, but I'm a bad student at school C
++.
:)))

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 15.11.2016 um 10:01 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> > On 15-11-2016 9:52, Stephen wrote:
> >> On 11/15/2016 8:01 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> >>> Yes, I know, but I understand that this is embedded in Blender, isn't
> >>> it? So, is that not a problem for those not familiar with Blender?
> >>
> >>
> >> I would love to see what LanuHum's translator makes of that last
> >> sentence. ;-)
> >
> > Oh dear, yes, I am sorry for that! ;-)
> >
> >>
> >> The problem with Blender is that it is so big and it takes a lot of time
> >> to get to the point where you don't have to think about how to do
> >> things. But I can see that it will be worthwhile.
> >>
> >> And the Z-axis is up. :(
> >>
> >
> > My own thoughts were originally going towards a dedicated tool,
> > specifically built for POV-Ray, like Moray was. I am starting to realise
> > that that may not be the smart way to go at all. As has been mentioned
> > here, Blender might be the solution. However like you, I am afraid it
> > may represent a serious hurdle to take before even reaching the POV-Ray
> > application.
>
> Maybe someone should get involved with Blender UI development, and
> implement an alternative UI for noobs, exposing only a subset of the
> features, to give new users some guidance what features they really
> need. Wings 3D does that (or at least did when I last used it), and I
> really liked it.
Ok! I can do that for POV users !

Post a reply to this message

>>>> I hate the
>>>> imprecision of most 3d software I have tried. I suppose I have some
>>>> degree
>>>> of OCD going on because that imprecision bothers the heck out of me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have a Big Giant Truckload of OCD going on and that imprecision is
>>> _precisely_ what bothers me.
>>
>> Sounds like you two would be better off with a CAD modeller rather than
>> a mesh-based modeller. Draw what you like, but then you can
>> constrain/dimension features, either with precise numerical values or
>> equations/scripts.
>>
>> For example, it's quite common to have a generic model of a screw, with
>> parameters for length and diameter. The model is created in such a way
>> that just changing those two parameters updates the model instantly.
>
> We can do an instant update. This is where Povray-users will use Blender. :))))
> Superellipsoid, supertorus and so on...

It's just a shame you would be forced to use the Blender UI to access 
such things... Maybe the developers have seen sense since last time I 
used it? I will need to check it out again at some point.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >>>> I hate the
> >>>> imprecision of most 3d software I have tried. I suppose I have some
> >>>> degree
> >>>> of OCD going on because that imprecision bothers the heck out of me.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I have a Big Giant Truckload of OCD going on and that imprecision is
> >>> _precisely_ what bothers me.
> >>
> >> Sounds like you two would be better off with a CAD modeller rather than
> >> a mesh-based modeller. Draw what you like, but then you can
> >> constrain/dimension features, either with precise numerical values or
> >> equations/scripts.
> >>
> >> For example, it's quite common to have a generic model of a screw, with
> >> parameters for length and diameter. The model is created in such a way
> >> that just changing those two parameters updates the model instantly.
> >
> > We can do an instant update. This is where Povray-users will use Blender. :))))
> > Superellipsoid, supertorus and so on...
>
> It's just a shame you would be forced to use the Blender UI to access
> such things... Maybe the developers have seen sense since last time I
> used it? I will need to check it out again at some point.

I misunderstood or poorly explained.
I mean, what if it is necessary to PWA users in Blender, then it can be
implemented.
But, as Mr writing - I need feedback.
When people use a Blender - they will express their wishes.
We will take into account the wishes and correct mistakes.
:)

Post a reply to this message

"LanuHum" <Lan### [at] yandexru> wrote:
>
> I misunderstood or poorly explained.
> I mean, what if it is necessary to PWA users in Blender, then it can be
> implemented.
> But, as Mr writing - I need feedback.
> When people use a Blender - they will express their wishes.
> We will take into account the wishes and correct mistakes.
> :)

PWA = Povray!
:))) translate

Post a reply to this message

in news:582b029d$1@news.povray.org clipka wrote:

>>> The problem with Blender is that it is so big [...]

> Maybe someone should get involved with Blender UI development, and
> implement an alternative UI for noobs, exposing only a subset of the
> features, [...]

one "GUI" for one task, blend out everything else. Push all GUI elements 
to a second screen.

Ingo

Post a reply to this message

>
> It isn't really OT, what better way to figure out what to promote about the
> current iteration of Pov than to discover not only what people like about
> it, but who those people are and why they feel as they do?
>
> One of the great things about Pov is that it forces you to utilize
> visualization techniques, which improves your spatial skills and overall
> mental proficiency in imagining complex things. This translates very well
> into software development skills, as I will explain later.
>
> An exercise I taught my wife and 6yo son which I have found to be very
> effective, is to imagine a V8 engine in your mind, as a transparent
> assembly, then run it, imagining each part operating properly at the same
> time while rotating it around mentally and pulling pieces away, changing
> the color, texture and transparency levels the entire time. You can even
> cause it to fail in a number of ways.
>
> You can then extend the idea to even more complex machines. A good place to
> start is with a 2 stroke engine and work your way up to successively more
> complex devices.
>
> Envisioning chemical reactions down to the bonds/electron shell/valency
> interactions can be very effective as well, which then builds into the
> ability to visualize mathematical expressions as surfaces and volumes.
>
> This technique is relaxing and really develops many skills such as thinking
> along multiple, even contradictory, lines simultaneously. It isn't hard and
> can be learned fairly easily.
>
> A huge roadblock people unwittingly foist upon themselves is falling prey
> to thinking linearly in words and speech, instead of multidimensional
> images. This gets you into the habit of self constraint in mental
> processing.
>
> That constraint is also what stops people from reading a page or paragraph
> at once, as instead they read to themselves in their mind. Your eyes
> capture the page at once, and if you train yourself you can assimilate the
> information at that same rate.
>
> Most of the work I do with software is handled as a visualization exercise
> and a background process, as I spend time doing other things or sitting
> there with a bowl of fine Virginia flake tobacco, letting my mind process
> all of the algorithmic interactions. Once that is all wrapped up, I spend a
> few hours coding, and I am done. It is basically hours or days of quiet
> contemplation followed by moments of frenzied typing. ;-)
>
> This technique of visualization has enabled me to develop the reputation at
> work for writing fully formed software with few to zero bugs, and in most
> circumstances to debug legacy code without running it, once I memorize the
> code base.
>
> I wasn't kidding when I credited Pov and the Dev team for my career. While
> my memory has always been very close to eidetic (but alas, I age...), I
> doubt my mind would function as it does now without the influence Pov has
> imparted to me, thus granting the ability to visualize code interaction as
> stated. Cheers to all, and my undying thanks.
>
> Perhaps this post will be of benefit to those who are considering a career
> to which such modes of thinking would be advantageous. Give it a try, you
> will likely surprise yourself with what you can do in short time.
>
> Now this really IS off topic lol!
>
> Ian

That's fascinating. I was a furniture designer in a previous life. I designed
before there was CAD and modellers and after. Before, to picture how all the
pieces would look together I would just have to go lie down and close my eyes
and just move everything around in my head. See it from different angles, try it
with different shapes. I first discovered POV as an aid. Looking back all my
best designs came out of that process of using one's imagination rather than
letting the techniques of software controlling what it has been programmed to
pre-visualize what it thinks you should see.

Post a reply to this message