Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 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.

As I said, I don't think there is anything wrong with adding meshes, you could
even combine a mesh and CSG for certain purposes, or multiple meshes.  Think
about the fan idea: make the housing, base and fan blade from seperate meshes,
they could then be combined in a macro with appropriate variables to control
the fan spin and housing oscillation for specific scenes, motion blur,
animation etc., things that wouldn't be simple with a single mesh object.

-tgq

Post a reply to this message