 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
[snip]
> True. But Megapov *can* do CSGs using either the mesh or the mesh2
> format.So, couldn't (and pardon me if I put my foot in my mouth through
> ignorance) Moray export the *results* as a solid mesh (mesh/mesh2 with
> 'inside_vector ' enabled). I believe Peak3d does something similar.
> Would this mean a major reworking? And wouldn't it be worth it, combining
> the
> power of both sPatch/ Hamapatch (especially now that you *can* do
> lofts/skinning in HamaPatch using the AMexport/AMLoft utility?
Moray is unlikely to ever support MegaPOV features, as it is written to
be compliant with official POV only, and I suspect that that in itself is
quite enough of a job for Lutz to handle.
Maybe after (the semi-mythical) POV 3.5 is released and Lutz has had
enough time to work on its features, then something like that may happen,
but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting. :)
[snip]
> Sorry for rambling. And thanks again, both of you, for your clarifications.
No problem.
Bye for now,
Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Jamie Davison, you recently wrote in moray.win:
> Anybody out there want to shoot my theories down in flames? Lutz?
I think betwenn you and Peter, we've got all bases covered :-)
- Lutz
email : lut### [at] stmuc com
Web : http://www.stmuc.com/moray
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Anoop Kumar, you recently wrote in moray.win:
> True. But Megapov *can* do CSGs using either the mesh or the mesh2
> format.
But a bezier patch is seldomly a solid object. I think MegaPOV can
handle CSG with patches (or triangles meshes for that matter) only if
they are closed (solid) objects. Otherwise there is no correct way of
displaying that.
> So, couldn't Moray export the *results* as a solid mesh
But then Moray would be undoing exactly what it wants to avoid ->
turning everything into triangles. Moray is NOT a triangle modeller,
which is what is required to do any sort of vertex editing. In
POV-Ray/Moray there are no vertices to edit when you are working with
CSG.
> Would this mean a major reworking? And wouldn't it be worth it, combining
> the power .....
That said, I do agree, however, that triangle modelling part of Moray
would be very useful in many ways. But look at the triangle modellers
out there, what they offer (and what they cost) and you can clearly
see that it's going to be a bit difficult to offer this as a part of
Moray....
> I really would love to use Moray for my normal (architectural) work
> but it's lack of spline support (& vertex editing) are discouraging.
Hmmmm, I would have thought that architectural work is ideally suited
to using CSG.....
Regards,
- Lutz
email : lut### [at] stmuccom
Web : http://www.stmuc.com/moray
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lutz Kretzschmar wrote in message ...
>> So, couldn't Moray export the *results* as a solid mesh
>But then Moray would be undoing exactly what it wants to avoid ->
>turning everything into triangles. Moray is NOT a triangle modeller,
>which is what is required to do any sort of vertex editing. In
>POV-Ray/Moray there are no vertices to edit when you are working with
>CSG.
>> Would this mean a major reworking? And wouldn't it be worth it,
combining
>> the power .....
>That said, I do agree, however, that triangle modelling part of Moray
>would be very useful in many ways. But look at the triangle modellers
>out there, what they offer (and what they cost) and you can clearly
>see that it's going to be a bit difficult to offer this as a part of
>Moray....
That's true, Moray does offer a lot of value for it's cost. Unfortunately
some of it's values are different from mine:(
>> I really would love to use Moray for my normal (architectural) work
>> but it's lack of spline support (& vertex editing) are discouraging.
>Hmmmm, I would have thought that architectural work is ideally suited
>to using CSG.....
CSG is very important, but the normal mode of working would be somthing
like this: 1).import plan (splines) from CAD program (unless, like, say,
Rhino
it combines both precision with modelling ease); 2) extrude walls to proper
ht/loft wall section along plan; mesh/vertex-edit & difference your
inner-wall mass from the outer-wall mass. 3) CSG your window/doors etc.
Also
lofting would be very useful for making complicated sloped-roofs.
Talking of splines, would there be any proposal for making the translated
splines realtime? Also, perhaps, (translated) nested spline shapes (prisms)
as in Pov-Ray? This would make the modelling of ordinary (simple-section)
walls easier to do.
Lastly, (& most important), export to sPatch/HamaPatch. Between
the two of them (Moray & HamaPatch) practically all bases should be
covered, I feel.
Thanks again,
& Regards
-Anoop
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> That's true, Moray does offer a lot of value for it's cost. Unfortunately
> some of it's values are different from mine:(
I am finding that I use moray more and more for scene layout and texturing
rather than modelling, it really doesn't get any better than rhino - which
thankfully exports moray UDO :)
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
Hi-Impact database driven web site design & e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rick [Kitty5] wrote in message <3b16b389@news.povray.org>...
>
>> That's true, Moray does offer a lot of value for it's cost.
Unfortunately
>> some of it's values are different from mine:(
>
>I am finding that I use moray more and more for scene layout and texturing
>rather than modelling, it really doesn't get any better than rhino - which
>thankfully exports moray UDO :)
<heavy sigh>...I really envy you. I wish I could afford Rhino (probably in
another 3-6 months. Till then, my last 15 days of the Rhino demo.) They
(Rhino, Moray & PovRay) make a superb combo, don't they.
I wonder how good the Rhino-Rhinoman-BMRT combo is - what with superb
radiosity (to my eyes) and true-displacement mapping (surprising that with
so many brilliant people in the POV community, nobody has done this yet.)
Well <sigh> back to the Moray-Rhino savings fund...
-Anoop
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3b16b389@news.povray.org...
>
> > That's true, Moray does offer a lot of value for it's cost.
Unfortunately
> > some of it's values are different from mine:(
>
> I am finding that I use moray more and more for scene layout and texturing
> rather than modelling, it really doesn't get any better than rhino - which
> thankfully exports moray UDO :)
And the UDOs from Rhino are really big files. As you know it is not
neccessary to have the UDO very detailed. Rick, did you find a way to make
them smaller? It slows down Moray a lot.
Lutz can't do something, and McNeel does not want to do something.
Stop, I have an idea:
In Rhino:
Mesh as fine as needed
export to UDO/INC
undo
In explorer:
ren the INC to IN_
In Rhino:
Mesh very rough
export to UDO/INC
In explorer:
del INC
ren the IN_ to INC
This should work. I'll make a test.
Nevertheless this is effort I don't want to have.
-C-H-A-R-L-E-S-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> And the UDOs from Rhino are really big files. As you know it is not
> neccessary to have the UDO very detailed. Rick, did you find a way to make
> them smaller? It slows down Moray a lot.
> Lutz can't do something, and McNeel does not want to do something.
the UDO's aren't the problem, its ramping the mesh detail up that gives the
huge INC files, even then i only run into problems with meshes over 200MB
the difference between the udo file for complex and simpler meshes is not
worth bothering about, best tip i have is to export a rough model to work
on, then re export a high detailed version over the top for the final over
nighter. - moray and pov dont notice the switch
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
Hi-Impact database driven web site design & e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3b182d7d@news.povray.org...
> the difference between the udo file for complex and simpler meshes is not
> worth bothering about, best tip i have is to export a rough model to work
> on, then re export a high detailed version over the top for the final over
> nighter. - moray and pov dont notice the switch
Oh no. Of course you are right!
I did it as complicated as possible: I made the model, meshed it roughly,
exported, set up the scene in Moray with all textures and light, made the
tests.
Then I meshed finer, deleted the UDOs in Moray, loaded the finer version,
and assigned all the textures for the fine version.
How stupid!
OK, your way is it.
Thanks a lot,
-C-H-A-R-L-E-S-
BTW: What do you think of flamingo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Then I meshed finer, deleted the UDOs in Moray, loaded the finer version,
> and assigned all the textures for the fine version.
> How stupid!
you don't have to delete the udo in moray - if you just re export your high
quality right over the top and hit render - it works :)
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
Hi-Impact database driven web site design & e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
