 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
When attaching a light to an object, moray extrapolates the position and
then places the light with the others in the front of the script. Does
the latest build of moray STILL do this?? It's annoying when you want
to animate something and the transformations get complex because of
CSG's parenting all the down to "great grandchildren."
I want the light to be *included* in the object declaration JUST as I
have placed it in the modeller- I want it actually attached! grrrrr....
Sorry if I sound angry but I spent about two hours last night trying to
figure out what the h$%^ was going on in an animation involving 750
objects (300 of them in one csg thingy that I don't even want to
contemplate anymore).
At any rate- hand attaching it isn't a problem except that the file is
thousands of lines long and I need to generate hundreds of these things
and yes, *I'M LAZY!*.
So... Lutz, how about it? What does the latest windows build do and/or
can you make this an option or a fix?
--
Stuff for POLYRAY, some raytraced images, and
DTA can be found at:
http://www.europa.ccom/~dearmad
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dearmad wrote:
>
*SNIP*
>
>
> At any rate- hand attaching it isn't a problem except that the file is
> thousands of lines long and I need to generate hundreds of these things
> and yes, *I'M LAZY!*.
>
Lazy? Lazy? Just the thought of doing this stuff makes the sweat break out
on my brow.
> So... Lutz, how about it? What does the latest windows build do and/or
> can you make this an option or a fix?
>
> --
> Stuff for POLYRAY, some raytraced images, and
> DTA can be found at:
> http://www.europa.ccom/~dearmad
--
Only I can prevent narcissism!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alex Magidow schrieb in Nachricht <36E342FE.D8753097@mninter.net>...
>Dearmad wrote:
[...]
>> At any rate- hand attaching it isn't a problem except that the file is
>> thousands of lines long and I need to generate hundreds of these things
>> and yes, *I'M LAZY!*.
>Lazy? Lazy? Just the thought of doing this stuff makes the sweat break out
>on my brow.
And modellers were made to make this kind of stuff unnnecessary, otherwise
we could just as well hand code everything, not using Moray at all <g>.
--
Rudy Velthuis
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rudy Velthuis wrote:
>
> Alex Magidow schrieb in Nachricht <36E342FE.D8753097@mninter.net>...
> >Dearmad wrote:
> [...]
> >> At any rate- hand attaching it isn't a problem except that the file is
> >> thousands of lines long and I need to generate hundreds of these things
> >> and yes, *I'M LAZY!*.
>
> >Lazy? Lazy? Just the thought of doing this stuff makes the sweat break out
> >on my brow.
>
> And modellers were made to make this kind of stuff unnnecessary, otherwise
> we could just as well hand code everything, not using Moray at all <g>.
>
> --
> Rudy Velthuis
You mean to tell me that Moray is a modelling program and not just a
friendly guy that helps everybody with their scenes ? I think I missed
that connection somewhere along the line. I always thought that hand
coding was the only option available. Gee !
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken schrieb in Nachricht <36E3D079.BA21A4BE@pacbell.net>...
>Rudy Velthuis wrote:
>>
>> Alex Magidow schrieb in Nachricht <36E342FE.D8753097@mninter.net>...
>> >Dearmad wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> At any rate- hand attaching it isn't a problem except that the file is
>> >> thousands of lines long and I need to generate hundreds of these
things
>> >> and yes, *I'M LAZY!*.
>>
>> >Lazy? Lazy? Just the thought of doing this stuff makes the sweat break
out
>> >on my brow.
>>
>> And modellers were made to make this kind of stuff unnnecessary,
otherwise
>> we could just as well hand code everything, not using Moray at all <g>.
>>
>> --
>> Rudy Velthuis
>
> You mean to tell me that Moray is a modelling program and not just a
>friendly guy that helps everybody with their scenes ? I think I missed
>that connection somewhere along the line. I always thought that hand
>coding was the only option available. Gee !
Dunno exactly how to answer this.
What I was trying to say, you don't have to be *lazy* to expect a modeller
to output exactly what you (tried) to input. I think a modeller like Moray
should really keep the light sources in the group, if you can group them
anyway. What's the use of grouping otherwise? So it should either not allow
to group them in, or really keep them there.
But then perhaps I just didn't understand your answer. :-)
BTW Moray is also a kind of fish, afaik.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Dearmad, you recently wrote in moray.win:
> I want the light to be *included* in the object declaration JUST as I
> have placed it in the modeller- I want it actually attached! grrrrr....
The current build still extracts the lights to the beginning of the
script. The reason is partly historic (the raytracer I started writing
Moray for needed them seperate from the objects) and partly because
POV-Ray doesn't handle spotlight in non-uniform scaled groups
correctly and it was too much of a headache to account for this with
the wireframe. I realize that not many people will run into this
problem, so I will see if I can leave the lights in the CSG in the
next release (hopefully this year).
- Lutz
email : lut### [at] stmuc com
Web : http://www.stmuc.com/moray
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hey, sorry, I was just expressing respect for a very nice member of the POV-Ray
community. I, personally, upon running into a problem of similar complexity,
given up pretty quickly, and not persevered quite as much as Dearmad did. I give
him my complete respect, and I also give Moray my complete respect.
Rudy Velthuis wrote:
> BTW Moray is also a kind of fish, afaik.
Actually, an eel...or a social no-no....
--
Only I can prevent narcissism!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You know... I can never start a thread when I want to... and now... :o)
Seriously, Lutz puts out a dman fine program- it's just that he's the
unwitting victim of me using MORAY as a keyframe generator for my
Tweener program, which needs to parse the scripted output (as I have no
access to the .MDL format) and so I NEED, I say I *NEED* to have
CONSISTENCY (sp) in the data so my Tweener program knows where to grab
digits from and how to place them in the heirarchy. I just noticed that
a light wasn't tracking correctly in a little scene I made and then I
realized *why*. I have yet to attach anything to the *camera* heaven
forbid and won't bother doing that! ;o)
I've been able to program around a LOT of the little oddities MORAY does
when it outputs scriptfiles but this one was too much for me to think of
a way to let my program figure out where to replace the light so it
tracked correctly in a particularly nasty CSG set that goes about 7
levels deep (due to joint needing to bend a certain way).
-er- my only little point here is that my "Lazy" paragraph was more a
bow or a nod to Lutz' hard work. From my perspective as an amateur
programmer I can only imagine the details Lutz must go through for moray
and I wanted him to realize that I wasn't coming across as a whiney
user- I've reg'ed v2.02 DOS and am "upgrading" to v2.5 in a bit, so I'm
behind the times with MORAY anyway! :o)
-Peter
Alex Magidow wrote:
>
> Hey, sorry, I was just expressing respect for a very nice member of the POV-Ray
> community. I, personally, upon running into a problem of similar complexity,
> given up pretty quickly, and not persevered quite as much as Dearmad did. I give
> him my complete respect, and I also give Moray my complete respect.
>
> Rudy Velthuis wrote:
>
> > BTW Moray is also a kind of fish, afaik.
>
> Actually, an eel...or a social no-no....
>
> --
> Only I can prevent narcissism!
--
Stuff for POLYRAY, some raytraced images, and
DTA can be found at:
http://www.europa.ccom/~dearmad
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lutz Kretzschmar wrote:
>
> Hi Dearmad, you recently wrote in moray.win:
>
> > I want the light to be *included* in the object declaration JUST as I
> > have placed it in the modeller- I want it actually attached! grrrrr....
> The current build still extracts the lights to the beginning of the
> script. The reason is partly historic (the raytracer I started writing
> Moray for needed them seperate from the objects) and partly because
> POV-Ray doesn't handle spotlight in non-uniform scaled groups
> correctly and it was too much of a headache to account for this with
> the wireframe. I realize that not many people will run into this
> problem, so I will see if I can leave the lights in the CSG in the
> next release (hopefully this year).
hehe... and after that version has been out for a year or so I'll get
around to using it... I'm just about ready to upgrade my v2.02 to 2.5
here soon... ;o)
thanks a ton for all the other stuff you're doin'.
>
> - Lutz
> email : lut### [at] stmuccom
> Web : http://www.stmuc.com/moray
--
Stuff for POLYRAY, some raytraced images, and
DTA can be found at:
http://www.europa.ccom/~dearmad
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Dearmad, you recently wrote in moray.win:
Thanks for the kind words. Much appreciated.
> I've been able to program around a LOT of the little oddities MORAY does
> when it outputs scriptfiles but this one was too much for me to think of
> a way to let my program figure out where to replace the light so it
> tracked correctly in a particularly nasty CSG set that goes about 7
> levels deep (due to joint needing to bend a certain way).
Yes, and there is no way round it, because the information just where
that light is located in the object hierarchy is not exported.
Now if you were using the plugin interface added in Moray V3.1 you'd
be able to completely integrate Tweener into Moray......<g>
- Lutz
email : lut### [at] stmuccom
Web : http://www.stmuc.com/moray
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alex Magidow schrieb in Nachricht <36E4A45C.28B04120@mninter.net>...
>Hey, sorry, I was just expressing respect for a very nice member of the
POV-Ray
>community. I, personally, upon running into a problem of similar
complexity,
>given up pretty quickly, and not persevered quite as much as Dearmad did. I
give
>him my complete respect, and I also give Moray my complete respect.
Hmmm, I seem to be understood wrong again. I was not criticising anyone and
I didn't feel I was being criticised by you either. Sorry if I gave anyone
that expression. I was just a bit puzzled by Ken's reply.
And I agree with you, that modellers are there to relieve us from the task
of hand-coding. I am a registered user of Moray 3.1 (although time has
prevented me from using it extensively), and I think it's a great program,
but I still don't understand the reasoning for some inconsistencies, like Z
being the up vector, and grouped light sources being de-grouped without
notice, etc. Propably they are historical reasons, mainly.
Lutz gave the reason for the degrouping of light sources, but still I'm a
bit puzzled by some aspects of the program. Maybe it's just me.
--
Rudy Velthuis
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rudy Velthuis wrote:
> Hmmm, I seem to be understood wrong again. I was not criticising anyone and
> I didn't feel I was being criticised by you either. Sorry if I gave anyone
> that expression. I was just a bit puzzled by Ken's reply.
Ken apologizes. He was trying to be off topically funny but
failed to somehow convey this in his juvenile attempt at humour.
Ken is a bad boy and I can assure you is in serious trouble now .
I will see to it that he punished severely for his crime and make
him promise to behave himself from now on.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken schrieb in Nachricht <36E5128B.3FA05DFF@pacbell.net>...
>Rudy Velthuis wrote:
>
>> Hmmm, I seem to be understood wrong again. I was not criticising anyone
and
>> I didn't feel I was being criticised by you either. Sorry if I gave
anyone
>> that expression. I was just a bit puzzled by Ken's reply.
>
> Ken apologizes. He was trying to be off topically funny but
> failed to somehow convey this in his juvenile attempt at humour.
> Ken is a bad boy and I can assure you is in serious trouble now .
> I will see to it that he punished severely for his crime and make
> him promise to behave himself from now on.
Heheh. It would have even been funnier if you had signed it: -- My Mother
:-)
--
Rudy Velthuis
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lutz Kretzschmar wrote:
>
> Hi Dearmad, you recently wrote in moray.win:
>
> Thanks for the kind words. Much appreciated.
>
> > I've been able to program around a LOT of the little oddities MORAY does
> > when it outputs scriptfiles but this one was too much for me to think of
> > a way to let my program figure out where to replace the light so it
> > tracked correctly in a particularly nasty CSG set that goes about 7
> > levels deep (due to joint needing to bend a certain way).
> Yes, and there is no way round it, because the information just where
> that light is located in the object hierarchy is not exported.
>
> Now if you were using the plugin interface added in Moray V3.1 you'd
> be able to completely integrate Tweener into Moray......<g>
you know...? this might be something to consider -dionnnnngggggggg-
<bells going off>
hm... well I'm committed to finishing my little cartoon project and
nearing the halfway point, but when thta's over I was looking for an
excuse to do some more programming... and that might be a tres cool
thing to do... :o)
>
> - Lutz
> email : lut### [at] stmuccom
> Web : http://www.stmuc.com/moray
--
Stuff for POLYRAY, some raytraced images, and
DTA can be found at:
http://www.europa.ccom/~dearmad
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rudy Velthuis wrote:
>
> Ken schrieb in Nachricht <36E5128B.3FA05DFF@pacbell.net>...
> >Rudy Velthuis wrote:
> >
> >> Hmmm, I seem to be understood wrong again. I was not criticising anyone
> and
> >> I didn't feel I was being criticised by you either. Sorry if I gave
> anyone
> >> that expression. I was just a bit puzzled by Ken's reply.
> >
> > Ken apologizes. He was trying to be off topically funny but
> > failed to somehow convey this in his juvenile attempt at humour.
> > Ken is a bad boy and I can assure you is in serious trouble now .
> > I will see to it that he punished severely for his crime and make
> > him promise to behave himself from now on.
>
> Heheh. It would have even been funnier if you had signed it: -- My Mother
>
then again... *REAL* mothers punishing *really* naughty little boys
might not bother to sign at all...
Ken? You there Ken? Ken!?!?!?
<snip>
--
Stuff for POLYRAY, some raytraced images, and
DTA can be found at:
http://www.europa.ccom/~dearmad
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dearmad wrote:
> then again... *REAL* mothers punishing *really* naughty little boys
> might not bother to sign at all...
>
> Ken? You there Ken? Ken!?!?!?
Ratboy has been chained in the cellar until this weekend. If he
behaves himself I might even feed him someting next week.
Ken's (a.k.a. Ratboy ) Mother
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Admittedly, it will be cool to see light_sources stay with any
group/CSG they're put with (would also be semi-cool to be able to
group cameras... why? consider a robot or spacecraft with cameras
physically attached to them so you can show scenes from their
perspective, or a mannekin with a camera in its head --- built
with IK and transform limits so you can pose it as a character in
your scene, then switch cameras to "see" things from its
perspective).
But back to the topic at hand: until that revision, there is
a workaround if you've got a gotta-do-now type project. Three
observations:
1. Light_sources can be declared objects.
2. UDO's can point to declared objects.
3. UDO references stay put when you group or CSG with them
Just did a quickie test... seems to work. A simple, basic UDO
to stand in for a light source is a fairly easily hand-made thing
and transforming the UDO transforms the light_source appropriately.
Might work for you in the here and now.
(Sadly, there are limits on what you can do with a #declare'd
camera, so the same technique doesn't adapt to cameras, but it
may to work for what you're describing...)
Charles
--
Fusner's Galleries - http://www.enter.net/~cfusner
"A conclusion is simply where you got tired of thinking."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Charles wrote:
>
> Admittedly, it will be cool to see light_sources stay with any
> group/CSG they're put with (would also be semi-cool to be able to
> group cameras... why? consider a robot or spacecraft with cameras
> physically attached to them so you can show scenes from their
> perspective, or a mannekin with a camera in its head --- built
> with IK and transform limits so you can pose it as a character in
> your scene, then switch cameras to "see" things from its
> perspective).
>
> But back to the topic at hand: until that revision, there is
> a workaround if you've got a gotta-do-now type project. Three
> observations:
>
> 1. Light_sources can be declared objects.
> 2. UDO's can point to declared objects.
> 3. UDO references stay put when you group or CSG with them
Yes, it does. Just the solution I came up with after awhile too, and
yes I'll second your positive findings as working! Thank goodness! So
my animation is off and continiug...
>
> Just did a quickie test... seems to work. A simple, basic UDO
> to stand in for a light source is a fairly easily hand-made thing
> and transforming the UDO transforms the light_source appropriately.
> Might work for you in the here and now.
>
> (Sadly, there are limits on what you can do with a #declare'd
> camera, so the same technique doesn't adapt to cameras, but it
> may to work for what you're describing...)
Not that *I* care! :o) the LIGHT problem is as good as solved- this
sort of "workaround" is nothing compared to some of the mangly band-aids
I've slapped together to keep things from falling apart as the "prject"
goes marching on... :o)
Thanks for the input, Charles.
-Peter
--
Stuff for POLYRAY, some raytraced images, and
DTA can be found at:
http://www.europa.ccom/~dearmad
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yeah the below works but this brought up another -er- feature of MORAY
when exporting to POLYRAY...
it DEFINES the referenced UDO object as:
name*_REF*
between the *'s is moray's added, however when it actually CALLS the
object (3 lines later) it drops the _Ref it added so get nothing- until
you go in and hand edit the little sucker. I discovered this after
placing about three hundred 3d letters once that were included UDO's...
I look back laugh now, but...
hehe, it's things like this that keep this hobby alive...
Dearmad wrote:
>
> Charles wrote:
> >
> > Admittedly, it will be cool to see light_sources stay with any
> > group/CSG they're put with (would also be semi-cool to be able to
> > group cameras... why? consider a robot or spacecraft with cameras
> > physically attached to them so you can show scenes from their
> > perspective, or a mannekin with a camera in its head --- built
> > with IK and transform limits so you can pose it as a character in
> > your scene, then switch cameras to "see" things from its
> > perspective).
> >
> > But back to the topic at hand: until that revision, there is
> > a workaround if you've got a gotta-do-now type project. Three
> > observations:
> >
> > 1. Light_sources can be declared objects.
> > 2. UDO's can point to declared objects.
> > 3. UDO references stay put when you group or CSG with them
>
> Yes, it does. Just the solution I came up with after awhile too, and
> yes I'll second your positive findings as working! Thank goodness! So
> my animation is off and continiug...
>
> >
> > Just did a quickie test... seems to work. A simple, basic UDO
> > to stand in for a light source is a fairly easily hand-made thing
> > and transforming the UDO transforms the light_source appropriately.
> > Might work for you in the here and now.
> >
> > (Sadly, there are limits on what you can do with a #declare'd
> > camera, so the same technique doesn't adapt to cameras, but it
> > may to work for what you're describing...)
>
> Not that *I* care! :o) the LIGHT problem is as good as solved- this
> sort of "workaround" is nothing compared to some of the mangly band-aids
> I've slapped together to keep things from falling apart as the "prject"
> goes marching on... :o)
>
--
Stuff for POLYRAY, some raytraced images, and
DTA can be found at:
http://www.europa.ccom/~dearmad
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dearmad wrote:
>
> -Peter
> --
> Stuff for POLYRAY, some raytraced images, and
> DTA can be found at:
> http://www.europa.ccom/~dearmad
Er, umm, ah Mr. Dearmad Sir.,
Two quick items to discuss with you.
Did you know that the link to your page is mispelled ?
.COM only needs one "C" to make it work.
Secondly you sent me a copy of dta32 when it was brand new and right
out of the box so to speak and at the time I thought it was odd there
was no command reference for it. I stopped by your site this morning,
after debunking your bad link, to see if perhaps this oversite had
been corrected. Alas and to my dismay the package and version you have
at your site is as devoid of information as the one I have.
Is there a reference list of possible commands available somewhere ?
If so where might that be ?
If not why not ?
I get the normal quick list if I just type dta32 at the command prompt
but even the older version had that and a reference too. It seems the
two versions are not structured the same and I would like to know what
the features and capabilities of the program are so that I may evaluate
it to it's fullest extint. Without docs I con't even know where to send
registration money to if I decide to keep it. That should be motivation
enough for Mr. Mason to get at least a small doc on the subject together.
Thank you for your time Mr. Dearmad Sir..
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken, um, weren't you in the BASEMENT a littlewhile ago! Now GET BACK IN
THERE or I'm telling MOM!
:)
<snip my embarrasin' stuff>
>
> Er, umm, ah Mr. Dearmad Sir.,
>
> Two quick items to discuss with you.
>
> Did you know that the link to your page is mispelled ?
> .COM only needs one "C" to make it work.
>
> Secondly you sent me a copy of dta32 when it was brand new and right
> out of the box so to speak and at the time I thought it was odd there
> was no command reference for it. I stopped by your site this morning,
> after debunking your bad link, to see if perhaps this oversite had
> been corrected. Alas and to my dismay the package and version you have
> at your site is as devoid of information as the one I have.
>
> Is there a reference list of possible commands available somewhere ?
>
> I get the normal quick list if I just type dta32 at the command prompt
> but even the older version had that and a reference too. It seems the
> two versions are not structured the same and I would like to know what
> the features and capabilities of the program are so that I may evaluate
> it to it's fullest extint. Without docs I con't even know where to send
> registration money to if I decide to keep it. That should be motivation
> enough for Mr. Mason to get at least a small doc on the subject together.
hehe... I think Dave's written off the $ involved... but you're not
missing anything I have or that Dave sent me or has himself I bet. For
DTA32 he seems to have yanked a lot of features that can be accomplished
by other simpler means or that he will add when it's out of beta
(alpha??) stage. Might be time to bug the poor man again and see what's
up.
>
> Thank you for your time Mr. Dearmad Sir..
Yeah yeah, get back down there <kick>.
and thanks for catching my- -er- intentional oversight trying to bug off
SPAM web browsers- you know, uh... nevermind.
--
stuff for people NOT in their basements on
rogue systems WITHOUT their MOTHER's approval
can be found at:
http://www.europa.com/~dearmad/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I always thought of modellers as tools for ppl who thought visually rather
than in a more ordered fashion (not that visually isn't ordered). I envy the
guys that see a scene as the journey and not the destination... sorta
Lue Ebra
Rudy Velthuis wrote in message <36e3c2a8.0@news.povray.org>...
>
>Alex Magidow schrieb in Nachricht <36E342FE.D8753097@mninter.net>...
>>Dearmad wrote:
>[...]
>>> At any rate- hand attaching it isn't a problem except that the file is
>>> thousands of lines long and I need to generate hundreds of these things
>>> and yes, *I'M LAZY!*.
>
>
>>Lazy? Lazy? Just the thought of doing this stuff makes the sweat break out
>>on my brow.
>
>And modellers were made to make this kind of stuff unnnecessary, otherwise
>we could just as well hand code everything, not using Moray at all <g>.
>
>--
>Rudy Velthuis
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lue Ebra schrieb in Nachricht <36e76e8a.0@news.povray.org>...
>I always thought of modellers as tools for ppl who thought visually rather
>than in a more ordered fashion (not that visually isn't ordered). I envy
the
>guys that see a scene as the journey and not the destination... sorta
>
Perhaps I didn't express myself clear enough. I meant to say, modellers,
just as most other computer programs, are (or should be) designed to make
our life easier (by taking away lot of hand-coding), not more complicated
(by introducing extra search/replace and hand-coding cycles).
--
Rudy
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rudy Velthuis wrote:
>
> Lue Ebra schrieb in Nachricht <36e76e8a.0@news.povray.org>...
> >I always thought of modellers as tools for ppl who thought visually rather
> >than in a more ordered fashion (not that visually isn't ordered). I envy
> the
> >guys that see a scene as the journey and not the destination... sorta
> >
> Perhaps I didn't express myself clear enough. I meant to say, modellers,
> just as most other computer programs, are (or should be) designed to make
> our life easier (by taking away lot of hand-coding), not more complicated
> (by introducing extra search/replace and hand-coding cycles).
For myself I used to be a pure handcoder and loved the challenge, but
slowly I let Moray seep into my toolbox and soon I found my projects
took off but I was *still* mortally challenged to get the scenes out-
for me the bar just got raised when I made it "easier" for myself by
using a modeller. I'm on frame 4137 (gotta rerender the last 61 as I
misplaced a light... grrr) of a 17fps cartoon now (it'll be about 10,200
in length) and there is no way on god's green earth I'd have attempted
it without a tool similar to Moray.
But, let me add this: I wouldn't trade in my handcoding days of
struggling for example to apply texture maps juuuust so for anything,
because now when I want to go in and add an "eyeblink" or something I
understand precisely where to go and how to apply the transformations
and in *what order* and why this is the way it works. And the knowledge
handcoding has given me for *really* tweeking a texture is invaluable.
Knowing the guts, as it were, has been a great benefit to me, or at
least the projects I throw in my direction.
hehe... but I always feel a twinge of sympathetic pain when I see a
newbie starting out with raytracing. It's a rough road and for me took
years to get even moderately skilled.
--
Stuff for POLYRAY, some raytraced images, and
DTA can be found at:
http://www.europa.com/~dearmad
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
