hi cliff,

ok, i'll look at blobman.  i've got the zip and i thought i might
use him but i just figured that he was created with some third
party software that would make the include file unreadable to
normal humans.

thanks, miker


Cliff Bowman <c.b### [at] cwcomduffcom> wrote in message
news:379772ee.16572392@news.povray.org...
> On Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:13:41 -0500, "MR" <a### [at] bnet> wrote:
>
> >hello,
> >
> >i've been playing with pov now for almost 6 months, and for that
> >time i've been caught up in writing equations for humanoid motion,
> >and have learned precious little about pov itself and even less
> >about moray and spatch.
> >
> >well, the motion equations are written, and i have a system set up
> >that i can at least use, and i'm ready to banish my stick figure
> >composed of cylinders and spheres for a little more life-like
> >figure.
> >
> >what would you suggest that i use to construct the various body
> >parts with?  meshes?  i get the feeling that moray or spatch might
> >be handy for constructing them.  i've gone thru most of the moray
> >tutorial, but i can't say that any particular process has jumped out
> >at me and said, "use this to model a face."
> >
> I'd suggest (going by the images produced) taking a look at the
> blob-man include file...
>
> Failing that, possibly borrowing some 3D meshes from around the net?
> (3D Cafe and the like).
>
> There's at least 1 tutorial on making human heads with sPatch, though
> I can't offhand think where it is :(
>
> The biggest problem with using meshes would probaly be the joints -
> problems that blobman almost certainly doesn't suffer from.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff Bowman
> Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
> PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail

Post a reply to this message

hey andrew,

thanks for the comments.  remember emailing me all those
cool media files a while back?

most of the motion equations were totally uninspiring.  80%
of it is nothing but motion using spherical coordinates.  for
example, the shoulder to the elbow, and then again... the
elbow to the wrist (i haven't done the hands yet).  the length
is fixed, and i just feed a macro two angle increments, one
coming down off the vertical axis, and the other out from the
x axis.

but when i wanted to specify the hip, ankle, and toe point and
then have the code calculate where the knee would be (is this
inverse kinematics?), it just about killed me.  ha ha.  took me
a month to come back up to speed enough on the math to
solve that one.

and right now... the body parts are static.  they will not flex
with motion.

thanks, miker




Andrew Cocker <and### [at] acockerfreeservecouk> wrote in message
news:3797d468@news.povray.org...
> I have a macro somewhere that places objects between two points, like
beads
> on a string. As the distance between each joint remains constant, couldn't
> you use this method? You could build each limb from many spheres of
various
> sizes, and you'd only need to animate the joint movement in 3d space. You
> could actually simulate muscle flexing also by affecting the scale of
> individual components. It'd be difficult to do certainly, but better
perhaps
> than blobs or meshes.
> I had intended to do this myself, using rotating orbiting blob-shapes, but
> couldn't find the movement data for the joints. Motion capture data was
what
> I was looking for, but had no joy.
>
> Just thought, if you created each limb seperately, then maybe you could
> cylindrically map a bump_map on each one to simulate muscle tone.
>
> ------
> Andy
>
>

Post a reply to this message

I find blobs hard to control... I remember seeing some space ships months
ago that were done in blobs and looked good... but blobs, for me, always
look out of place... perhaps I took too many life drawing courses or
somthing, but computer generated people need to be accurate or cartoonish,
and I haven't seen blobs go far enough in either direction..

This is of course, purely my opinion. I am impressed with the blob man
include file in that it can pose complex objects, but I'm not satisfied
with the way it looks.

Joshua
eng### [at] spiritonecom

Chris Huff wrote:

> >You can use blobs, but I'm not satisfied with that look, personally.<
>
> A simple question(or perhaps not...), why?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 01:55:10 +0100, "Andrew Cocker"
<and### [at] acockerfreeservecouk> wrote:

>I have a macro somewhere that places objects between two points, like beads
>on a string. As the distance between each joint remains constant, couldn't
>you use this method? You could build each limb from many spheres of various
>sizes, and you'd only need to animate the joint movement in 3d space. You
>could actually simulate muscle flexing also by affecting the scale of
>individual components. It'd be difficult to do certainly, but better perhaps
>than blobs or meshes.
>I had intended to do this myself, using rotating orbiting blob-shapes, but
>couldn't find the movement data for the joints. Motion capture data was what
>I was looking for, but had no joy.
>
I've found a few sites with motion data on them in what I'm told is a
comparatively "standard format" - BVH files. I've not found (or looked
for) the file specification but it's probably "out there" if you know
that BVH is another word to use when doing searches. I was actually
looking for other stuff when I found it so I don't have any URL's to
hand - but give me a yell if this doesn't help and I'll see if I can
find some again.


Cheers,

Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail

Post a reply to this message

Cliff Bowman <c.b### [at] cwcomduffcom> wrote in message
news:37988b18.60314359@news.povray.org...

> I've found a few sites with motion data on them in what I'm told is a
> comparatively "standard format" - BVH files. I've not found (or looked
> for) the file specification but it's probably "out there" if you know
> that BVH is another word to use when doing searches. I was actually
> looking for other stuff when I found it so I don't have any URL's to
> hand - but give me a yell if this doesn't help and I'll see if I can
> find some again.

Thanks Cliff, but it's not a priority at the mo'. But let me ask you
something regarding Dr Who. What was the title of the episode (s) that
featured the Krynoids (not sure of the spelling), the plant-like tentacled
things? I remember it scared me more than any other episode. It was a Tom
Baker Dr. Who ( the best ).

Cheers,

Andy

Post a reply to this message

I second the request.
Mr. Art

Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> 
> Can't help you with the body-model, but can we have the human-motion
> formulas?
> 
> ZK

-- 
Advanced means constantly wondering where reality gets its processing
power.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 19:29:59 +0100, "Andrew Cocker"
<and### [at] acockerfreeservecouk> wrote:

>
[snip Motion-Capture/BVH]
>
>Thanks Cliff, but it's not a priority at the mo'. But let me ask you
>something regarding Dr Who. What was the title of the episode (s) that
>featured the Krynoids (not sure of the spelling), the plant-like tentacled
>things? I remember it scared me more than any other episode. It was a Tom
>Baker Dr. Who ( the best ).
>
It's "The Seeds of Doom" - and yes, at the time I found it terrifying.
Thinking back I can't help but think that the later stages could be
done better now with POV (you know the bits I mean - ginormous plant
attacks huge "house") as long as POv was given a render farm the size
of London to work with <eg>.
Ooo-err. I think I've just become the group's token Dr Who geek.


Eeek!


Cheers,

Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail

Post a reply to this message

Then prepare to feel insulted:
What's this Dr. Who, anyway? A TV show? I think I saw a computer game on that
theme once and never quite figured out what the hell was going on.
Have I missed something good? :P

Margus

Cliff Bowman wrote:
> 
> Ooo-err. I think I've just become the group's token Dr Who geek.
> 
> Eeek!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Cliff Bowman
> Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
> PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail

Post a reply to this message

Hey, Margus, you've not lived until you watch a year of Dr. Who shows. I
was always tuning in to see the next episode as the Tardis (time machine
disguised as a English phone booth) went galavanting about the universe
and landing in more trouble. It was quite some time before I knew of the
other Dr. Who's (the main character actor changed over time) as I
recall. That was back in the early 80's when I saw the TV show on a
Public Broadcasting Station in Seattle. For those not in the know about
it the series was beyond sci-fi lameness I thought, so much so it was
intriguing. Simply great to sit and watch and let the mind rest. That's
my opinion of it anyway.


Margus Ramst wrote:
> 
> Then prepare to feel insulted:
> What's this Dr. Who, anyway? A TV show? I think I saw a computer game on that
> theme once and never quite figured out what the hell was going on.
> Have I missed something good? :P
> 
> Margus
> 
> Cliff Bowman wrote:
> >
> > Ooo-err. I think I've just become the group's token Dr Who geek.
> >
> > Eeek!
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Cliff Bowman
> > Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
> > PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 03:02:45 +0300, Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peakeduee>
wrote:

>Then prepare to feel insulted:
>What's this Dr. Who, anyway? A TV show? I think I saw a computer game on that
>theme once and never quite figured out what the hell was going on.
>Have I missed something good? :P
>
Not with the computer games you haven't!

But to put it into comparative perspective, the original Star Trek
series lasted 3 seasons before it ended (followed by a few years of
virtually nothing unless you count the - awful - cartoon series).
Doctor Who lasted over 20 seasons before it's first hiatus (of about
18 months IIRC) and a total of about 26 seasons (I forget) but has
been pretty much "on hold" for about the last 10 years.

Star Trek was revitalised by a series of movies which resulted in a
resumption of interest and, eventually, several new series's each of
which fared better than TOS (despite the fact that the first movie
wasn't generally raved about). The BBC seem to be currently
considering a second Dr Who movie after the 1995 TV Movie acheived
insufficient viewing figures in the states (did well over here
though).

As a series Dr Who varied wildly. The series was based around good,
interesting scripts. Sometimes the direction was good, the acting, the
music. the sets, the 'effects' etc. but equally there are fine
examples of men in rubber suits and poor acting/lighting/sets if you
look for them (and, sadly, not ALL the scripts were up to scratch
either). As a whole the percentage of times they got it "right" as
opposed to "wrong" (see rubber suits, acting etc.) was amazingly high
- resulting in a niche fandom which is still quite vocal (worldwide)
ten years after the series basically ended.

Erm... looking for something on topic. Oh yeah. Some of the online
fandom even tinker around with POV to re-create some of the aspects of
the show. They might even re-create lost episodes and new fan stories
if they ever get their seats in gear :)


Cheers,

Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail

Post a reply to this message