 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> IME, with mesh moddelling *nothing* is trivial or easy. (Well, except
>> selecting "torus" and then "create mesh". That's trivial.) Every mesh
>> editor I've ever seen makes it utterly painful to achieve even the
>> most seemingly simple task.
>
> You should watch this:
> http://www.blendercookie.com/2009/08/28/modeling-a-praying-mantis/
Maybe when I get home. I apparently don't have whatever plugin is
required currently installed...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> Clearly you have not actually used any half-decent modeling software.
>
> I don't know - what counts as "half-decent"?
>
> Back in the Amiga days, AmigaFormat gave away several coverdisks
> featuring demo versions of what were supposedly "cutting-edge" 3D
> applications - Expert 4D Jr, Imagine 3D, Real 3D, Cinema 4D, etc. Hell,
> I even once borrowed an illegal copy of 3D Studio Max.
Are you seriously implying Amiga modelers could be called "half-decent" now?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Are you seriously implying Amiga modelers could be called "half-decent" now?
Are you seriously implying that triangles have fundamentally changed
somehow?
Last time I checked, the triangles used by the ancient Greeks were
pretty similar if not identical to the ones used today.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Are you nuts? I count at least 49 points in the curve, not 16. There's no
> way you can place almost 50 points in 3D space with such perfection.
> Placing just six points in a 2D circle is almost impossibly difficult, so
> 50 is clearly well beyond possibility.
> I have no idea what you're talking about, but OK.
> You can extrude a non-planar shape?
> Fair enough.
> Well, I guess that would explain that. (Although the belt still needs to
> be *larger* than the waist. Maybe just scaled a little?)
> Then you have managed to create something in 2 minutes which is
> dramatically more complex than any mesh object I have ever created in my
> entire life with any 3D product, ever.
Maybe you should download Blender and a follow a few tutorials - it's clear
from the things you've said you have no idea what is easily doable in even
free 3D modellers.
eg:
http://www.blendernation.com/tutorials/blender-3d-beginner-tutorial-dolphin/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Are you seriously implying that triangles have fundamentally changed
> somehow?
>
> Last time I checked, the triangles used by the ancient Greeks were pretty
> similar if not identical to the ones used today.
You clearly have no idea of the sort of tools that are available in mesh
editors.
Please don't assume they don't exist because you don't know about them.
If you can think of someway that would speed-up mesh editing (eg extruding
multiple non-planar surfaces, or scaling a group of vertices independently
of the rest of the mesh, or selecting a "ring" of vertices/edges
automatically), then it probably exists already. Other people have thought
about this quite a lot already.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You should watch this:
>> http://www.blendercookie.com/2009/08/28/modeling-a-praying-mantis/
>
> Maybe when I get home. I apparently don't have whatever plugin is
> required currently installed...
Actually, loading this with IE instead of Firefox seems to make it play.
(Although obviously I still have no sound.)
After spending almost an hour watching this, it's clear that a hell of a
lot of work went into it. It's also clear that you could never, ever do
something like this just by moving verticies one at a time. Somehow this
guy manages to make Blender move multiple points simultaneously, and
even more them in some pretty complex ways.
On the other hand, if you left me in a room with Blender for 6 years, I
suspect I *still* couldn't make that God-damned banana look right... :-/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Then you have managed to create something in 2 minutes which is
>> dramatically more complex than any mesh object I have ever created in
>> my entire life with any 3D product, ever.
>
> Maybe you should download Blender and a follow a few tutorials - it's
> clear from the things you've said you have no idea what is easily doable
> in even free 3D modellers.
Well, now that I have VMware, I thought I might do that, just for a giggle.
So far I can't figure out how to even change the 3D view. :-|
Clearly I'm going to have to sit down and do a whole crapload of reading
before I can start doing anything interesting with Blender. (Quite apart
from the intractibility of 3D modelling, the UI itself seems to behave
in a number of surprising ways - which probably take a while to get used
to.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> IME, with mesh moddelling *nothing* is trivial or easy. (Well, except
> selecting "torus" and then "create mesh". That's trivial.) Every mesh
> editor I've ever seen makes it utterly painful to achieve even the most
> seemingly simple task.
meh, I won't bother trying to cram anything into that skull of yours
this time. It's clearly useless to keep telling about edge loops,
extrusions and axis locking and showing images produced this way rather
than manually moving millions of vertex as you're used to.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> You clearly have no idea of the sort of tools that are available in mesh
> editors.
>
> Please don't assume they don't exist because you don't know about them.
I guess it's similar to the way that tools like Photoshop or The GIMP as
supposed to be these all-powerful imagine manipulation tools, yet they
don't seem to "do" very much.
> If you can think of someway that would speed-up mesh editing
> then it probably exists already. Other
> people have thought about this quite a lot already.
Has somebody invented a way of placing points in 3D space even though
you only have a 2D edit area yet?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:00:08 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> I guess it's similar to the way that tools like Photoshop or The GIMP as
> supposed to be these all-powerful imagine manipulation tools, yet they
> don't seem to "do" very much.
You need to stop conflating "they don't seem to 'do' very much" with "I
don't know how to make them do complex operations". These two statements
are not equivalent.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
