 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Depends on exactly which way it isn't perfectly cylindrical in.
How about simply a stretched cylinder, ie an extruded ellipse. You can't
simply scale the torus or cone otherwise the radius/bevel will not be
constant around the perimeter.
As well as having elliptical buttons, the top surface of the buttons on my
phone are also curved (concave inwards). I suppose you could model this in
POV by subtracting a big sphere from the extruded oval. But how to do the
rounded edge then? Matching up a round with the vertical sides (actually
they're slightly off-vertical) of the button with the curved top surface
doesn't sound very easy to me.
> Really, you can go a seriously long way using only quadratics and CSG.
Do you have any examples?
> Think about it - if you wanted to model the Natural History Museum, would
> you built it out of a few quadrillion triangles? Or just cut a few solids
> out of each other? I know what I'd choose...
And I know which one would look like a photo-realistic model and which one
would look like a few solids cut out of each other :-)
> Mmm, interesting. In all the years I've been using POV-Ray, I've never
> actually noticed that before...
I didn't realise it either until I got into designing stuff that people will
actually see (as opposed to internal components). Most companies will
reject any curvature discontinuities.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote in message
news:4b29374d$1@news.povray.org...
> nemesis wrote:
> > right mouse button click (RMB) - selects
> > left mouse button click (LMB) - changes location of 3D cursor
> And I think that there pretty much sums up why people think Blender's
> interface sucks. :-)
My thoughts exactly while I was reading that list. Well, not exactly, but
close enough.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> right mouse button click (RMB) - selects
>>> left mouse button click (LMB) - changes location of 3D cursor
>>
>> And I think that there pretty much sums up why people think Blender's
>> interface sucks. :-)
>
> Not really, you can change that one around (as I always do).
Which is irrelevant to the point that it defaults to doing everything
differently than every other piece of software and platform, and you have to
read lots of manuals just to learn how to close the program.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> scott wrote:
>> Mabye I just suck at POV? I just made this in Blender (sorry for JPEG
>> compression, shouldn't have chosen red!), it has *9* vertices,
>> followed by two mirror modifiers and the subdivision modifier. Total
>> time about 10 mins, including adding some lights and materials. No
>> way I could achieve the same in SDL, even in 1 hour.
>
> That is actually quite impressive. Normally you'd have to model
> something like this with blobs. I have no idea how it's possible to
> construct this in a single human lifetime using only straight edges.
Much easier than modelling the base.
Forget the straight edges: for the millionth time, he's using a
subsurface division modifier on top of the base simple mesh. There's no
hard edges to be seen anywhere because there's loads of very small
polygons tessalating the entire surface because of that. Real curve or
not, it looks as good as real curved surface. Yeah, even if there were
reflections.
> I just spent about an hour trying to make a torus in Blender. (Obviously
> you can just click "insert torus", but I wanted to see if it's
> physically possible to make one manually.) Suffice it to say most of
> that time was just spent trying to force Blender to do what I actually
> want it to do.
Like adding a circle object, going into edit mode, grabbing it some 1
unit to the left, changing view to front and using the spin button to
have it spin around the y axis?
> I guess the thing about Blender is that it forces you to think in terms
> of surfaces, while POV-Ray allows you to think in terms of *volumes*,
> which is far more natural.
Natural or not, I've been far more productive within a few weeks of
Blender than in my whole 10 or so years of pov SDL. It's a marvel how
I've gone from RSOCP's or little more than that to realistic-looking
settings with real-world objects in such small time, kinda like a rupture.
I was a SDL-only guy once, but I don't find it any worth today except to
assemble and script scenes out of polygon-modelled objects.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
>> Maybe your phone is different, but my phone looks impossibly hard to
>> do in POV SDL with all those complex curved surfaces and rounded edges.
>
> My phone is pretty squarish, with square and round buttons. Looks quite
> easy to do. The coilled cable might be difficult, what with POV not
> having real splining tools. (You gotta type in the coordinates by hand.)
> About the only remotely tricky part would be the handset.
oh, so because your phone is squarish, we should refrain to model
non-squarish phones and only use pov SDL, since it's so great at
hard-edged geometry... fine excuse. Good thing is that iPhone is so
popular and so easy to model with a superellipsoid... though you still
need an imagemap rather than procedural...
What I really want to see is you stop whinning and showing a perfectly
curved phone better than the fake-curved phone scott provided. You have
ten minutes.
or just STFU.
> You take the equation for a plane, add some noise to it. OK, for a brick
> I guess you'd need a seperate isosurface for each side. Still much
> easier than trying to model roughness by hand.
psst: there's a displace modifier too. Or apply your material texture
to the disp channel. But scott already told you that.
Why do you insist on being stubborn?
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> I was a SDL-only guy once, but I don't find it any worth today except to
> assemble and script scenes out of polygon-modelled objects.
It's still the easiest ray tracer for writing a program that outputs your
scene file. The python stuff in Blender is (a) undocumented and (b) too
buggy to use.
I've done code to build 3D buildings from textual "blueprints," a program
that generates random mazes you can walk thru in first person, and somewhere
I have something that generates random caves with blobs for D&D-like games,
again 1st person of course. None of which are feasible with any other tool
I've tried.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Depends on exactly which way it isn't perfectly cylindrical in.
>
> How about simply a stretched cylinder, ie an extruded ellipse. You
> can't simply scale the torus or cone otherwise the radius/bevel will not
> be constant around the perimeter.
Yeah. In that case you'd have to use a sphere-sweep [which is
inexplicably slow for no defined reason].
> As well as having elliptical buttons, the top surface of the buttons on
> my phone are also curved (concave inwards). I suppose you could model
> this in POV by subtracting a big sphere from the extruded oval.
Indeed, that's exactly how you'd do it. Much like if you wanted a convex
top instead.
> But how
> to do the rounded edge then? Matching up a round with the vertical
> sides (actually they're slightly off-vertical) of the button with the
> curved top surface doesn't sound very easy to me.
It does to me, but hey...
>> Really, you can go a seriously long way using only quadratics and CSG.
>
> Do you have any examples?
Not to hand, no.
>> Think about it - if you wanted to model the Natural History Museum,
>> would you built it out of a few quadrillion triangles? Or just cut a
>> few solids out of each other? I know what I'd choose...
>
> And I know which one would look like a photo-realistic model and which
> one would look like a few solids cut out of each other :-)
Yes, because crude approximations to cylindrical columns look so much
more photo-realistic than actually cylindrical columns. Oh, wait...
>> Mmm, interesting. In all the years I've been using POV-Ray, I've never
>> actually noticed that before...
>
> I didn't realise it either until I got into designing stuff that people
> will actually see (as opposed to internal components). Most companies
> will reject any curvature discontinuities.
Ah, well, presumably if you're doing CAD rather than just pretty
pictures, you have *real* modelling tools. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> I was a SDL-only guy once, but I don't find it any worth today except
>> to assemble and script scenes out of polygon-modelled objects.
>
> It's still the easiest ray tracer for writing a program that outputs
> your scene file. The python stuff in Blender is (a) undocumented and (b)
> too buggy to use.
>
> I've done code to build 3D buildings from textual "blueprints," a
> program that generates random mazes you can walk thru in first person,
> and somewhere I have something that generates random caves with blobs
> for D&D-like games, again 1st person of course. None of which are
> feasible with any other tool I've tried.
I see. A limited scripting language with no real support for modules or
functions is better-suited for all those than a more general one.
Like they say: sometimes less is more.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> What I really want to see is you stop whinning and showing a perfectly
> curved phone better than the fake-curved phone scott provided. You have
> ten minutes.
>
> or just STFU.
Except that it *isn't* perfectly curved. It's fake. It's just flat
surfaces and jaggid lines filtered to make it seem smooth.
> psst: there's a displace modifier too.
How can you displace a triangle?
> Why do you insist on being stubborn?
I think because fundamentally I dislike trickery. Modelling solid
objects as true solids with a real inside and outside, and real curves,
and real patterns, etc. seems so much superior to faking it with lots of
straight lines and pixels.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> I see. A limited scripting language with no real support for modules or
> functions is better-suited for all those than a more general one.
Yep. I actually didn't use an # directives in the outputs. Just thousands of
individual objects, with each scene still only taking a second or two to parse.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
