cre### [at] belialrenonvus wrote:

> so my method of making ALL my objects at 0,0,0 and then translating them
> where I want them is umm....non-standard?:) (I swear I make everything at
> 0,0,0 then translate and rotate to where it looks right) I find it easier
> but then hehehe :)

	Should you get into animation, that is the only way to do it.
Just make variables rather than absolutes for everything that
moves. 

-- 
<A href="http://www.giwersworld.org">A free internet for a free
people.</a>

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:24:38 -0800, Ken wrote:
> >sphere{0,1) // a unit sphere at the origin
>
> That's not a unit sphere.  It's a sphere of unit radius.
>

Well, the sphere with unit radius is commonly referred to as the unit
sphere.

alberto

Post a reply to this message

"Alberto" <ame### [at] mausbve> wrote :
>
> Well, the sphere with unit radius is commonly referred to as the unit
> sphere.
>

    That's why I make all my spheres with a 0.5 radius, so they will be more
reasonably called 'unit' spheres. So that like a unit box, if I copy one
exactly one unit away, they will just touch.

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt wrote:

> "Francois Labreque" <fla### [at] attglobalnet> wrote :
> >
> > box {
> >     < 2.875, 5.5, 3.6333333 >
> >     < 7.142857, 9.3, 4 >
> > }
> >
>
>     Modeler syndrome.

Why, do you use box { <2+7/8,5+1/2...?

--
___     _______________________________________________
 | \     |_          <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
 |_/avid |ontaine        http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." -Dali

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque wrote:

> OK.  The choice of numbers wasn't probably the best to illustrate my
> point, but I think it came across nevertheless.   Anyway, most of my
> boxes look more like this:
>
> box {
>     < 2.875, 5.5, 3.6333333 >
>     < 7.142857, 9.3, 4 >
> }
>
> Which is wayyyyyyyyy easier than
>
> box {
>     scale < 4.267857, 3.8, 0.2666666 >
>     translate < 7.642857, 9.8, 4.5 >
> }

I suppose it depends what you're using it for. If you want a box of a
certain size at a certain location, use the latter. If the endpoints of the
box are of significance, use the former. Like when I do LEGO stuff, the
endpoints are the extent of the piece, so I use the first one...

--
___     _______________________________________________
 | \     |_          <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
 |_/avid |ontaine        http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." -Dali

Post a reply to this message

"David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote :
> >
> >     Modeler syndrome.
>
> Why, do you use box { <2+7/8,5+1/2...?
>

You stopped before it got hairy. Mouse placement of objects gives you odd
decimal values like the 3.6333333 or 7.142857. Often you see modeler files
that have values like 12.0023 in scenes that clearly do not have that kind
of a problem with tolerances.

    In this example, with any camera more than a unit or two away from the
object, 3.63 would have done, and probably 3.6 would be as good.

    You see the same thing in textures done with sliders, rgb < 0.992342,
0.0, 0.0 > = red, AFAICT.

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt wrote:

> You stopped before it got hairy. Mouse placement of objects gives you odd
> decimal values like the 3.6333333 or 7.142857. Often you see modeler files
> that have values like 12.0023 in scenes that clearly do not have that kind
> of a problem with tolerances.

That is one of the reasons I hate using a mouse in a 3D graphics
environment. Their precision sucks big time.

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Ken wrote:

> 
> 
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
> 
> > You stopped before it got hairy. Mouse placement of objects gives you odd
> > decimal values like the 3.6333333 or 7.142857. Often you see modeler files
> > that have values like 12.0023 in scenes that clearly do not have that kind
> > of a problem with tolerances.
> 
> That is one of the reasons I hate using a mouse in a 3D graphics
> environment. Their precision sucks big time.

Yeah........hand scripting is so precise...there is something elegant
about it :)

I mean a box thats 1,1,1 units in size is elegant....but 1.00345, 1.00673,
1.00892 ? looks messy (well at least I think so)

 
> -- 
> Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Matt Giwer wrote:

> cre### [at] belialrenonvus wrote:
> 
> > so my method of making ALL my objects at 0,0,0 and then translating them
> > where I want them is umm....non-standard?:) (I swear I make everything at
> > 0,0,0 then translate and rotate to where it looks right) I find it easier
> > but then hehehe :)
> 
> 	Should you get into animation, that is the only way to do it.
> Just make variables rather than absolutes for everything that
> moves. 

Thats good to know....:)

 
> -- 
> <A href="http://www.giwersworld.org">A free internet for a free
> people.</a>
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt wrote:
> 
> "David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote :
> > >
> > >     Modeler syndrome.
> >
> > Why, do you use box { <2+7/8,5+1/2...?
> >
> 
> You stopped before it got hairy. Mouse placement of objects gives you odd
> decimal values like the 3.6333333 or 7.142857.

What is so odd about 3.63333333 ( 4 - 11/30 ) or 7.142857 ( 7 + 1/7 )? 
I might be a bit picky about precision, but not everything in this
universe is neatly placed along unit coordinate lines!

 Often you see modeler files
> that have values like 12.0023 in scenes that clearly do not have that kind
> of a problem with tolerances.

That's why I haven't used modelers in a looong time.

> 
>     In this example, with any camera more than a unit or two away from the
> object, 3.63 would have done, and probably 3.6 would be as good.

Agreed.

> 
>     You see the same thing in textures done with sliders, rgb < 0.992342,
> 0.0, 0.0 > = red, AFAICT.

Only to the untrained eye :)

-- 
Francois Labreque | It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it
     flabreq      | is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
        @         | the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a 
  attglobal.net   | warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in
motion.
                               - Stolen from Badger's .sig file

Post a reply to this message