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

"Stephen Klebs" <skl### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Well, of course. If you imagined metropolis extraterrestrial civilization ...
sure every building (40 thousand buildings) need to create a text editor ...
From this you will get great pleasure, but your people will see a picture after
a Flood.
:)))

Post a reply to this message

Sherry K. Shaw <ten### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> I have a Big Giant Truckload of OCD going on and that imprecision is 
> _precisely_ what bothers me.
> 

I paint also, oils, acrylics, Sumi-e, watercolor...and I always, precisely
to scale, sketch the design of what I will paint in advance within a graph
paper sketch book.

Then when transferring to canvas I utilize techniques I picked up in
drafting classes to replicate the design exactly down to the limit of
precision of my measuring instruments. This takes a while.

When actually painting I ensure my lines are of exact width, unwavering in
shape be it curved or straight, and enforce some overarching algorithmic
relationship between the colors, positions and etc..

> OCD and I are old friends.  We have reached an agreement.  Whenever I 
> find myself starting to count, I instead start to sing (preferably 
> subvocally, out of consideration for the rest of the world).  I don't 
> REALLY know how many steps it is from the front door of my house to the 
> driver's door of my car, because that would be creepy.*

I do not manifest it as such, but instead as a visceral disgust for any
imprecision originating with myself in works to which I dedicate and amount
of time and effort. 

I hate paper and paperwork, can tolerate only mild to moderate
disorganization unless priorities prevent rectification of such or would
otherwise be disadvantageous.

> But deliberate imprecision...???  When precision is readily available...???
> 

And easy to achieve.

> The human fingertip makes a really crappy mouse cursor.  It doesn't have 
> a hotspot marked, and it obscures the point of contact just as a basic 
> factor of its structure.  And there's a keyboard with a number pad on it 
> RIGHT THERE...

YES! That!

> So.....one million bonus points to whoever remembers the name of that 
> Asimov story about the little genius boy who could do simple arithmetic 
> without a calculator, since I think it sort of applies to this issue.
> 

I haven't read that one, but will look out for it.

Since 2013 (for sci-fi) I have read the entire Foundation series, all of
the Dune books, The Wheel of Time, The Dark Tower series ...nearly all of
the works by the following (some specific listed series only): David Brin,
Stephen Baxter, Terry Pratchett, Greg Egan, Peter f Hamilton, Ian Douglas,
Arthur C Clarke, Gregory Benford, Alastair Reynolds, Vernor Vinge, Larry
Niven, Robert Charles Wilson, Kevin J Anderson (specifically the Saga of
the Seven Suns and its extension), Michael McCloskey, Jerry Pournelle, Iain
M Banks, Dan Simmons, H.P. Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith, Willian Hope
Hodgeson....I have a list of others I am burning through currently but I am
not done with their works, so they don't go on this list yet.

If you haven't read these folks and can tolerate world-views and political
thought potentially in diametric opposition to your own and still enjoy the
content (such was the case with me), check them all out. Peter F Hamilton
is one of the best in my opinion, but they are all good in different ways.

I can't sleep much and so read books, journal papers or write code instead.
I might as well better myself.

> --Sherry Shaw
> 
> * 43, unless I park funny.  OH, GACK!  "The ants go marching one by one, 
> hurrah, hurrah.  The ants go marching one by one, hurrah, hurrah..."
>

Post a reply to this message

Stephen Klebs <skl### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
L
> 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.
> 

Exactly; the same phenomena of "brain drain" is occurring in all fields.
The reliance upon tools fundamentally weakens our ability to operate
without them. There is nothing wrong with tools in and of themselves, and
through their use we can perform metatasks quite quickly, but like Opioids
used incorrectly, it can quickly grow into a dependence...and that is
certainly not good.

I look at the elementary school mathematics books from my grandfather, and
compare those to what is being used here (USA) now and the difference is
utterly stark.

Whereas long ago Algebra was truly a fundamental part of all early
education, now it is relegated to GT/AG classes and for the rest it is
delayed until much later in the curricula of standard public education.
This is sick. Why break the minds of an entire people?

That among the whole flood of propaganda is why my son goes to a private
school, does not watch TV, have a phone, use the internet, play video games
or any other such nonsense.

He does own a laptop, and I am teaching him how to program and construct
various forms of robotic and autonomous systems, as he is very interested
in that subject along with Chemistry. He is six, and I am quite sure that
were he exposed to mass media he would not manifest nearly such affinity
for science and technology.

Now I'm really, *really* OT.
Oh well. Free-for-all! Lol

Ian

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> 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.
> 

This is why I have FormZ (love formz), Rhino+Grasshopper, CanvasX14 and so
on. :)

Z-Brush would give me nightmares. Lol

Ian

Post a reply to this message

ingo <ing### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> 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
> 
> 

The blender UI, rumor had it long ago, was intentionally (or
retro-intentionally) obfuscated in order to fund the app by selling manuals
and such. At least that was the rumor years ago, and after using it
(well...trying to) I could totally buy that conjecture. ;D

Or it could have been a consequence of design-by-committee. :p

I have not attempted to do so in years though, and based on the
conversation here perhaps it is time I did.

My ideal UI would be like TrueSpace 3 + Bryce + Houdini.
Hell, Houdini is frankly in my opinion perfect. I just cannot afford it,
though there is a free version and a cheap version I like to own full
versions, so Lightwave haha!

Ian

Post a reply to this message

in
news:135### [at] newspo
vray.org [GDS|Entropy] wrote: 

> The blender UI, rumor had it long ago, was intentionally (or
> retro-intentionally) obfuscated in order to fund the app by selling
> manuals and such. 

't was an inhouse tool before released to the public and at that time it 
already had this "informal" GUI.

I liked sPatch but it needed way to many mouse clicks, I still use Silo 
every now and then and loved 3D Studio R4. There also used to be an 
excellent blob moddeler with blob-splines and stuff and Leveller for 
terrains.

Ingo

Post a reply to this message