Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> a huge hate thread about Blender, 
> 
> I find it funny that you're reading "hate" into any of the posts.

I find it funny that you don't notice it in-between the lines.

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

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> 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.

It only took me writing two and having them both not work to convince me 
otherwise.

Note that it's possible to be "buggy" and yet still work for lots of people. 
Maybe I was just doing things that nobody else tried to do, or if they tried 
and it failed, they didn't complain or try to fix it but rather just gave up 
on it (like me).

-- 
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:
> Darren New escreveu:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> a huge hate thread about Blender, 
>>
>> I find it funny that you're reading "hate" into any of the posts.
> 
> I find it funny that you don't notice it in-between the lines.

Maybe hatred of inanimate objects just isn't something I relate to.

-- 
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:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Darren New escreveu:
>>> nemesis wrote:
>>>> a huge hate thread about Blender, 
>>>
>>> I find it funny that you're reading "hate" into any of the posts.
>>
>> I find it funny that you don't notice it in-between the lines.
> 
> Maybe hatred of inanimate objects just isn't something I relate to.

Maybe only people who love perfectly round surfaces can relate to. ;)

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

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> This puzzles me. I'm not disputing you're wrong - usually there's some 
>> option to set the number of subsamples taken - but since a GPU can 
>> *only* draw straight lines, you'd think they could just use the 
>> closed-form formulas for doing mathematically perfect AA on polygon 
>> edges. It takes about 3 float-ops. No subsamples required.
> 
> That method has problems when you are drawing triangles adjacent to each 
> other.

Like what?

> Also how does your method work with a pixel shader?

If I actually knew what a pixel shader is, I could maybe answer. :-)

>> I still find it rather hard to believe that you can take a complex 
>> shape such as the surface of a water splash and automatically 
>> tesselate it.
> 
> If you're going for physical accuracy then your simulation data will be 
> in voxels or something anyway,

Unless it's a particle method.

> so using marching cubes or similar will get you your tesselated mesh directly.

I see.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

nemesis escreveu:
> Invisible escreveu:
>> 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.

I take it you can't prove your arguments, right?  Or perhaps you need a 
whole day to provide a pure SDL, perfectly curved phone?

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

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.
> 
> I take it you can't prove your arguments, right?  Or perhaps you need a 
> whole day to provide a pure SDL, perfectly curved phone?

For your benefit, I will repeat myself: *most* man-made objects have 
lots of straight or simply-curved edges and are very easy to model with 
CSG. However, highly-curved non-random objects such as car bodies or 
trainers or similar are difficult to model using only CSG.

Then again, given that I personally can't model them with triangles 
either, it's kind of moot at this point.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
>>> 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.
>>
>> I take it you can't prove your arguments, right?  Or perhaps you need 
>> a whole day to provide a pure SDL, perfectly curved phone?
> 
> For your benefit, I will repeat myself: *most* man-made objects have 
> lots of straight or simply-curved edges and are very easy to model with 
> CSG.

No, they aren't easy.  Which is why you're backing off.

> Then again, given that I personally can't model them with triangles 
> either, it's kind of moot at this point.

You can't because you're stubborn and does not listen to advice, but 
other people can because they learn instead of whine.

Bevels in Blender go about as easily as selecting the appropriate 
modifier from a drop-down list.  How many clever lines of SDL code do 
you have to go through to add perfectly curved bevels to your hard-edged 
CSGs?  don't mind, it's rhethoric.  You could ask clipka, because his 
train was the best piece of beveled pure CSG I've ever seen...

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

Post a reply to this message

>>> I take it you can't prove your arguments, right?  Or perhaps you need 
>>> a whole day to provide a pure SDL, perfectly curved phone?
>>
>> For your benefit, I will repeat myself: *most* man-made objects have 
>> lots of straight or simply-curved edges and are very easy to model 
>> with CSG.
> 
> No, they aren't easy.  Which is why you're backing off.

So you're seriously telling me that if you wanted to model, say, an 
engine, you'd actually draw billions of triangles rather than just take 
a cube and intersect a few cylinders out of it, and then make the 
pistons to go in it, etc?

Um, why?

>> Then again, given that I personally can't model them with triangles 
>> either, it's kind of moot at this point.
> 
> You can't because you're stubborn and does not listen to advice, but 
> other people can because they learn instead of whine.

Or rather, because they've spent more time reading the documentation 
than I have so far?

> Bevels in Blender go about as easily as selecting the appropriate 
> modifier from a drop-down list.

I'll believe it when I see it. :-P

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
> So you're seriously telling me that if you wanted to model, say, an 
> engine, you'd actually draw billions of triangles rather than just take 
> a cube and intersect a few cylinders out of it, and then make the 
> pistons to go in it, etc?

Stop talking BS, dude.  If that's a challenge, post the SDL produced 
image and ask me to produce a Blender equivalent.  There are cubes and 
cylinders shapes available in Blender too, the rest, like curve 
smoothness, is all by means of modifiers.

I don't deal with the millions of polygons generated at render time by 
these modifiers, just with the simple cage meshes.  Are you listening 
this time or still playing deaf?

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

Post a reply to this message