 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Rune wrote:
> > gradient2 y would from y=0 to y=1 return 0 to 1. But unlike
> > regular gradient y it would stay at 1 at y>1 instead of
> > repeating. At y<0 it would return 0.
>
> It has already been done... but not in the official 3.1g
> Please have a look about SHEET (or BAND ?) in some unofficial
> version. It is exactly what it does.
Thanks for the tip!
Glad others than me could see the usefulness of such a pattern! ;)
Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated January 6)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune <run### [at] iname com> wrote:
> "J?r?me Grimbert" wrote:
>> Rune wrote:
>> > gradient2 y would from y=0 to y=1 return 0 to 1. But unlike
>> > regular gradient y it would stay at 1 at y>1 instead of
>> > repeating. At y<0 it would return 0.
>>
>> It has already been done... but not in the official 3.1g
>> Please have a look about SHEET (or BAND ?) in some unofficial
>> version. It is exactly what it does.
> Thanks for the tip!
> Glad others than me could see the usefulness of such a pattern! ;)
I've always wanted a pattern like that, although what I'd like is more of an
S curve. Lots of mathematical formulae work for that, though.
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote:
> In article <3a5880ae@news.povray.org>, "25ct" <25c### [at] lineonenet> wrote:
> > My idea would be for someone to produce a code that 'finds' the
> > centre of these shapes in the render window, and then, by clicking
> > your mouse on the shape, and holding down, just move the shape to at
> > least where you want it to go, rather than taking 30 minutes to get
> > it there in the first place.
>
> What you are looking for is a modeller. POV-Ray is a renderer.
I've used programs like CorelDream3D, Bryce, etc., and they are a PITA as
far as this kind of operation. My experience is that a little program that
tries to read your mind on these kinds of operations is more headache than
help. In CD3D, you could describe the object in world or object
coordinates, move the object itself or its center of mass, and it was often
automatically converting the units back and forth without my permission,
especially in rotations. I wouldn't stop you from trying programs like
Moray or a demo of say Rhino, but if you are trying to avoid all math you
might not be in luck. Furthermore, while I have immense respect for sPatch,
I guess I just "cannot draw with a mouse" and so I find mouse-grabbing
programs don't aid my artistic output that much. Furtherfurthermore, a
measure of my intelligence is that I never got off the ground with Moray and
wasn't ever able to really model much of anything with it. Povlab OTOH
doesn't work.
In MegaPov, there are advanced functions like trace and min/max_extent that
I have found very helpful in figuring out exactly where a missing object is.
And if I may say so, even when modelling in povray, I've found that a little
more work and discipline up front can avoid "where is my object?" headaches
later--such as deciding up front that my blob character will have feet
bottoms at y=0 and head top at y=10. Just firing away modelling based on
looks in current window makes for more headaches later.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Greg M. Johnson" <gre### [at] my-dejanewscom> wrote in message
news:3A5B091E.1F85F9FD@my-dejanews.com...
> And if I may say so, even when modelling in povray, I've found that a
little
> more work and discipline up front can avoid "where is my object?"
headaches
> later--such as deciding up front that my blob character will have feet
The white man speaks truth. My big mistake in early pov was to define, say,
a table at <10,0,15>, then define a candle-stick at <10,5,15>, then decide
that the candlestick was too small, scale it up and watch it disappear over
the horizon. Nowdays, all my objects and object components start with some
logical point at <0,0,0>.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
> Furthermore, while I have immense respect for sPatch, I guess
> I just "cannot draw with a mouse" and so I find mouse-grabbing
> programs don't aid my artistic output that much.
You're not the only one. I feel that I just can't use 3D programs with
GUI...
The positive way of thinking of it is: "Monitor and mouse works in two
dimensions only, but in my head I can visualise things in 3d"
Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated January 6)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You're not the only one. I feel that I just can't use 3D programs with
> GUI...
I went through a Lightwave tutorial once... when I was done, I had a very
nice exploding planet and all, but I also had a headache.
> The positive way of thinking of it is: "Monitor and mouse works in two
> dimensions only, but in my head I can visualise things in 3d"
You feel like you just want to reach in there and grab the darn thing!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
>
> I've used programs like CorelDream3D, Bryce, etc., and they are a
> PITA as far as this kind of operation. My experience is that a
> little program that tries to read your mind on these kinds of
> operations is more headache than help.
Any program that tries to do your thinking for you is likely to be
more trouble than it's worth. The more recent versions of MS Word
give me fits.
> Furthermore, while I have immense respect for sPatch, I guess I just
> cannot "draw with a mouse" and so I find mouse-grabbing programs
> don't aid my artistic output that much.
The chief flaw of many modellers I've seen is the tendency for all
editing to be done in planes parallel to the coordinate axes. While
working on my modeller [1], I found that being able to interactively
rotate the view of the project makes it much easier to understand what
one is doing.
Regards,
John
--
[1] Not even half done, I'm afraid. I had something halfway decent
put together last year, and then decided to add movable limbs and
subdivision surface support to the features. This is not hard, but
designing an intuitive user interface is proving to be difficult...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:3a5b1acf@news.povray.org...
>
> You're not the only one. I feel that I just can't use 3D programs with
> GUI...
>
Same here - I find them useful for those aspects of a render, such as
patches and meshes, which are dauntingly complex to hand-code, but even so
it feels like sewing with gloves on.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> The chief flaw of many modellers I've seen is the tendency for all
> editing to be done in planes parallel to the coordinate axes. While
> working on my modeller [1], I found that being able to interactively
> rotate the view of the project makes it much easier to understand what
> one is doing.
[Snip]
> ... This is not hard, but
> designing an intuitive user interface is proving to be difficult...
If You want to see good modeller with this respect, then I'd recommend
to try Rhino (www.rhino3d.com). It has quite intuitive and well thought
user interface: views in all viewports could be changed on fly (even
during selecting point or giving input to some complex command),
zooming, rotating, panning is easy with keys or mouse. Additional nice
feature is dynamic shading in view: one can move surface control points
and view result in other view immediately...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3a5b2a96@news.povray.org>, "Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg>
wrote:
> > The positive way of thinking of it is: "Monitor and mouse works in two
> > dimensions only, but in my head I can visualise things in 3d"
>
> You feel like you just want to reach in there and grab the darn thing!
That is exactly how I feel...the only modeller I would be able to use
efficiently would be one with a 3D display(goggles are clumsy, something
like shutter-glasses or those 3D monitors), complete freedom of movement
of the point of view, and probably using some kind of VR gloves to
manipulate objects, with the "number typing" method available.
Otherwise, I'm always struggling to get things positioned where I have
them visualized.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
