Trevor G Quayle wrote:
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> 
>>"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
>>news:47952fdf$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>>>St. wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
>>>>news:4794efd1@news.povray.org...
>>>>
>>>>>nemesis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>that sounds great!  I'm guessing you're expecting pure CSG, no meshes?
>>>>>
>>>>>That's the idea, of course.
>>>>
>>>>     In this day and age, that's a real shame.
>>>>
>>>>       ~Steve~
>>>
>>>Don't get me wrong - there's no way I'd turn away a good model if one got
>>>submitted.  I just prefer CSG for its flexibility (through macros and / or
>>>parameters), compactness, and the fact that it uses real curves.
>>
>>    Hmm, well, true. It's just me though, I feel restricted when I can offer
>>so much with an .obj mesh. After what now, six, seven years(?) using PoV,
>>I'll never be able to handle CSG properly, it's just not my thing. I admire
>>the guys that can though, no doubt about that.
>>
>>     ~Steve~
>>
>>
>>
>>>--
>>>...Ben Chambers
>>>www.pacificwebguy.com
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong with either CSG or meshes I think.  The advantage of CSG is the
> making of parameterable(?) objects, e.g. a table where you can define the
> height, widht and length (which aren't dependent on just straight scale
> factors).  Of course you can try to hand-code a mesh that has some variable
> adjustment (I've done a few).  You can also wrap meshes in a macro that can
> carry additional simple parameters like scaling and textures.
> I tend to use a lot of CSG when modelling, mainly because I don't want to take
> the time to learn a modeller, but also for the parameterability(?).  For
> instance, the smurf house I posted a while back is pure CSG and has a number of
> variables that I can change on the fly to adjust it's look.
> I do occasionally use meshes as well though, either premade meshes by others or
> for example, meshes made from TopMod.
> I guess after all this, I'll have to submit an object or two now...
> 
> -tgq
> 
> 
Sure but with some objects there would be diminishing gain from being 
parametrized, versus the work needed to do it.  I was contemplating a 
desk fan for instance.  The design is what it is. And it involves a 
number of cast metal housings with complex curves, smooth chamfers and 
such. Very difficult to handle in csg without a foregiving attitude. 
Meanwhile, you parametrize a few things, say to lengthen or widen the 
base, but to try and code something like a fan such that one design 
could be morphed into another design by adjusting parameters seems like 
an exercise in cleverness for its own sake with little practical payoff. 
Such a design is an integrated thing, not just a matter of making table 
legs longer to fit a need. Better to simply post a file of the 
unsmoothed mesh in a common format.  It can be imported into a modeller 
and the base made taller or wider just as easily that way, (would work 
for table legs too, btw,) or whole parts of the design concept could be 
morphed by a subsequent artist in ways the original contributor might 
never predict.

Now, on the other hand, I was also contemplating oak file cabinets.  Now 
there I could see a csg solution that could, for instance, allow for 
different matrixes of drawers, anything from a cabinet for 3x5 file 
cards to one for large flat maps, all from the same macro.

Post a reply to this message