 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I note with humor this selling point from the description of Sketchup Pro:
"Typing is a lousy way to draw. Building 3D models is tricky enough without
having to think like a computer. Instead of making you input coordinates,
SketchUp has an advanced guidance system of colors, lines and text hints that
help you keep track of where you are and what you're doing."
http://www.sketchup.com/?id=2
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> I note with humor this selling point from the description of Sketchup Pro:
>
> "Typing is a lousy way to draw. Building 3D models is tricky enough without
> having to think like a computer. Instead of making you input coordinates,
> SketchUp has an advanced guidance system of colors, lines and text hints that
> help you keep track of where you are and what you're doing."
>
> http://www.sketchup.com/?id=2
And drawing is a lousy way to construct complex algorithmic forms.
Sounds like two programs aimed at different problem domains to me. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "Typing is a lousy way to draw.
I write SVG in a text editor for most of my drawing needs.
And I'm not even joking.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> And drawing is a lousy way to construct complex algorithmic forms.
>
> Sounds like two programs aimed at different problem domains to me. ;-)
yes, one seems aimed at real-world architectural simulations, while the other at
abstract math compositions, at least as far as typing goes...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> yes, one seems aimed at real-world architectural simulations,
> while the other at abstract math compositions, at least as
> far as typing goes...
I cannot speak at all to th "aim" of povray, but I do character animation of
cartoony humans by typing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"gregjohn" wrote:
> I cannot speak at all to th "aim" of povray, but I do character animation
> of
> cartoony humans by typing.
Having done that myself once, I will allow myself to question the efficiency
of that approach. The character animations that you and I have made with
POV-Ray are not exactly considered state of the art.
I hate to admit it, but the one week I spent making my first ever animation
with 3ds Max was more productive than any of the animations I had ever done
with POV-Ray after having used it for years.
POV-Ray certainly has its merits, but if it ain't procedural, it can
probably be done faster with other software.
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> "Typing is a lousy way to draw.
>
> I write SVG in a text editor for most of my drawing needs.
>
> And I'm not even joking.
I like the GUI for SketchUp.
The only drawback of the GUI is that it can be difficult
to make pyramid and dome shapes.
It also seems somewhat bloated performance wise...
Unfortunately it's almost impossible to export geometry
with the free version, and the image maps are no longer
exportable at all in the free version 6, the full version is $495.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood escribió:
> Unfortunately it's almost impossible to export geometry
> with the free version, and the image maps are no longer
> exportable at all in the free version 6, the full version is $495.
Today I read that you need the full version and *signing an NDA* to get
the C++ SDK (for example to write a converter).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
Having been to a SIGGRAPH conference, I have seen what by one measure is great
work in animation, ranging across multiple styles. Some of the stuff obtusely
made use of state of the art features of high end packages and was "great" but
completely unenjoyable.
I would take less offense at the idea that my animation talent is not world-wide
in quality than that povray, per se, is inevitably doomed to be unable to
produce in this field, even efficiently. It just needs the right SDL system.
For example, with a little work, I could get my system to read mocap files--
characters could even be constructed directly from any arbitrary mocap data.
Two other points:
i) I still think it's incredibly cool I can get my life's creative work on one
CD. (The SDL files). How many other artists can say that.
ii) I once told a friend I was into computer animation. Soon his cousin was
emailing me to offer a hacked version of a high-end 3D program. This was the
life-- they had to hack software they couldn't afford to use otherwise.
For some of those SIGGRAPH presentations, it seemed like the software companies
were sponsors.
Just musin',
greg.
> "gregjohn" wrote:
> > I cannot speak at all to th "aim" of povray, but I do character animation
> > of
> > cartoony humans by typing.
>
> Having done that myself once, I will allow myself to question the efficiency
> of that approach. The character animations that you and I have made with
> POV-Ray are not exactly considered state of the art.
>
> I hate to admit it, but the one week I spent making my first ever animation
> with 3ds Max was more productive than any of the animations I had ever done
> with POV-Ray after having used it for years.
>
> POV-Ray certainly has its merits, but if it ain't procedural, it can
> probably be done faster with other software.
>
> Rune
> --
> http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"gregjohn" wrote:
> I would take less offense at the idea that my animation talent is not
> world-wide
> in quality than that povray, per se, is inevitably doomed to be unable to
> produce in this field, even efficiently.
The scripting approach is doomed to be inefficient for modeling and
animation of non-procedural things like characters. Using POV-Ray as a
renderer is a different matter, and I find that much more realistic.
> It just needs the right SDL system.
> For example, with a little work, I could get my system to read mocap
> files--
Sure. Then the animation would be done outside of POV-Ray, which would
indeed be more effecient.
> characters could even be constructed directly from any arbitrary mocap
> data.
Yeah, but characters modeled in POV-Ray always seem to be shaped more by the
posibilities and limitations of the program, than by the imagination of the
artist. You could import meshes and make code to adapt them to arbritary
mocap data, but then the actual modeling would still be done outside of
POV-Ray, which again would be more effecient.
> Two other points:
> i) I still think it's incredibly cool I can get my life's creative work on
> one
> CD. (The SDL files). How many other artists can say that.
Not many, but I don't think many would think of it as important either,
especially if it is limiting their artistic expression. And if you begin
using detailed meshes, image maps and mocap data in your POV-Ray animations,
it won't hold true anymore.
> ii) I once told a friend I was into computer animation. Soon his cousin
> was
> emailing me to offer a hacked version of a high-end 3D program. This was
> the
> life-- they had to hack software they couldn't afford to use otherwise.
> For some of those SIGGRAPH presentations, it seemed like the software
> companies
> were sponsors.
POV-Ray is free and that's great; no doubt about that. That still doesn't
mean it's an effecient tool for character modeling and animation. :) If it
was, companies would be all over it, with all the money they could save on
licenses for expensive 3D software.
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
