Invisible wrote:
> Yes, because crude approximations to cylindrical columns look so much 
> more photo-realistic than actually cylindrical columns. Oh, wait...

Consider what happens if your "approximation" results in sub-pixel-sized 
triangles. Then it becomes no more an approximation than yours does, 
considering *your* picture is also made out of pixels.

-- 
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

>> Yes, because crude approximations to cylindrical columns look so much 
>> more photo-realistic than actually cylindrical columns. Oh, wait...
> 
> Consider what happens if your "approximation" results in sub-pixel-sized 
> triangles. Then it becomes no more an approximation than yours does, 
> considering *your* picture is also made out of pixels.

...until you have a reflection of the object where the triangles appear 
bigger. Or a shadow cast in the wrong direction.

But yeah, sure, I am apparently the only person here who thinks that 
real curves are superior to faked ones. I'll grant you that one.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escreveu:
> 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.

It doesn't matter if they are fake if they look perfectly smooth.  Same 
can be said of Pixar stuff.

BTW, the 10 minutes are gone, so you should just STFU instead of 
whinning without giving solid examples to your (false) claims.

>> psst:  there's a displace modifier too.
> 
> How can you displace a triangle?

You don't, you displace meshes.  Dense meshes.

>> 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.

Fine, give us your perfectly curved SDL phone and we'll all agree with 
you.  I'll give you the benefit of doubt and more 10 minutes.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escreveu:
>>> Yes, because crude approximations to cylindrical columns look so much 
>>> more photo-realistic than actually cylindrical columns. Oh, wait...
>>
>> Consider what happens if your "approximation" results in 
>> sub-pixel-sized triangles. Then it becomes no more an approximation 
>> than yours does, considering *your* picture is also made out of pixels.
> 
> ...until you have a reflection of the object where the triangles appear 
> bigger. Or a shadow cast in the wrong direction.
> 
> But yeah, sure, I am apparently the only person here who thinks that 
> real curves are superior to faked ones. I'll grant you that one.

I grant you don't know what an integral means.  I'm also aware that you 
long lost reasoning in your will to spill poison.  I also notice you are 
not listening to us in your lone quest...

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> 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.

You have loops, ifs and macros.  I didn't say otherwise.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> But yeah, sure, I am apparently the only person here who thinks that 
> real curves are superior to faked ones. I'll grant you that one.

Real curves are superior. They're just not always worth the effort.

-- 
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

Warp escreveu:
>   How many triangles can you find in the attached image?

BTW, I find it both funny and ironic that it started with a puzzle about 
a triangle and went on to be a huge hate thread about Blender, 
polygon-based modelling and so forth... :)

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New escreveu:
>> 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.
> 
> You have loops, ifs and macros.  I didn't say otherwise.

No, POV has loops, ifs and macros. *I* actually didn't use them.

Oh, are you trying to compare SDL against Blender's Python? Yeah, I tried 
writing code in blender's Python. It doesn't work. It's buggy. It's 
undocumented or at best very poorly documented.

So, in this specific instance, yeah, SDL is actually a better output 
language than Blender's Python interface, if that's what you mean.

-- 
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

nemesis wrote:
> a huge hate thread about Blender, 

I find it funny that you're reading "hate" into any of the posts.

-- 
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

Darren New escreveu:
> tried writing code in blender's Python. It doesn't work. It's buggy. 

The hundreds of Blender scripts both official and by users out there 
seem to contradict that.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message