 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The race is on...
Here is one very useless macro I did a few days ago for a picture (and
didn't use eventually because the pipes didn't look good in that
particular image, too bad).
It makes random pipes like in that old Windows screensaver, though the
pipes are constrained in a box. You can define your own pipe decorations
and some other parameters. You can save the result in a file for later
use. It can eat considerable amounts of memory. It's not bugfree.
Our silent friend Goevert did a picture like this some time ago, but
this is a totally different code.
It's good to create pipes, oil refinerie, Death Star tunnels, and er,
pipes and oil refineries.
Pipe image demo below, made with several runs of the macro.
Macro and example in binaries.utilities (madpipe.zip).
Have fun
Gilles Tran
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'trypipe.jpg' (41 KB)
Preview of image 'trypipe.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wow, I like this unusefulness! :-)
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, but surely *the* most "unuseful" (sic) macro would be one that creates
a sky_sphere with a black pigment! :)
GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansas net
Marc Schimmler wrote in message <3729A9D9.1943FD68@ica.uni-stuttgart.de>...
>Wow, I like this unusefulness! :-)
>
>Marc
>--
>Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
GrimDude wrote:
>
> Yes, but surely *the* most "unuseful" (sic) macro would be one that creates
> a sky_sphere with a black pigment! :)
>
Well, it could be used to make a night sky and therefor it has a usage!
How about a povray macro that creates code for POVRAY 4.0!
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
>Well, it could be used to make a night sky and therefor it has a usage!
>
>How about a povray macro that creates code for POVRAY 4.0!
>
>Marc
>--
>Marc Schimmler
Perhaps a usage, but by default...
GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And this one ?
#macro Sphere(Position, Radius)
sphere {Position, Radius}
#end
You can call it with:
Sphere(<0, 1, 0>,5)
David Gemelli
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Remco de Korte
Subject: Re: Most unuseful macro contest : the mPipe macro
Date: 30 Apr 1999 13:03:24
Message: <3729D1C7.D573778A@xs4all.nl>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
>
> The race is on...
> Here is one very useless macro I did a few days ago for a picture (and
> didn't use eventually because the pipes didn't look good in that
> particular image, too bad).
> It makes random pipes like in that old Windows screensaver, though the
> pipes are constrained in a box. You can define your own pipe decorations
> and some other parameters. You can save the result in a file for later
> use. It can eat considerable amounts of memory. It's not bugfree.
> Our silent friend Goevert did a picture like this some time ago, but
> this is a totally different code.
>
> It's good to create pipes, oil refinerie, Death Star tunnels, and er,
> pipes and oil refineries.
>
> Pipe image demo below, made with several runs of the macro.
> Macro and example in binaries.utilities (madpipe.zip).
>
> Have fun
>
> Gilles Tran
>
The image is teriffic.
The macro... one question: does it check for crossing pipes (?) ?
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
No it doesn't. It only verifies that the pipes stay in the containing box
(they tend to crawl on the box surface after a while). Implementing collision
detection shouldn't be to difficult (though parsing intensive) since the path
of the pipe is kept in an array, but the macro was primarily built to create
automatically a very complicated pipe object that looks good with no intention
of verisimilitude whatsoever. Indeed, these pipes look much better when they
cross... I decided to write the macro after trying to position the pipes by
hand (and having little success).
Gilles
Remco de Korte wrote:
> >
> The image is teriffic.
> The macro... one question: does it check for crossing pipes (?) ?
>
> Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
As I have said before : Definitely not, because you have to consider the
ratio (Necessary Complexity
/ usefullness) to be a winner :-)
I still consider myself the winner, obviously Gilles Tran's has not a chance
as he says himself
"It's good to create pipes, oil refinerie, Death Star tunnels, and er,
pipes and oil refineries."
Philippe :-))
>And this one ?
>#macro Sphere(Position, Radius)
> sphere {Position, Radius}
>#end
>You can call it with:
>Sphere(<0, 1, 0>,5)
>
> David Gemelli
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
perhaps the design of a #macro that will create a #macro that will allow you to
design a #macro that will create a #macro that will allow you to design a
#macro to create......
;-]
KB-
GrimDude wrote:
> Yes, but surely *the* most "unuseful" (sic) macro would be one that creates
> a sky_sphere with a black pigment! :)
>
> GrimDude
> vos### [at] arkansasnet
> Marc Schimmler wrote in message <3729A9D9.1943FD68@ica.uni-stuttgart.de>...
> >Wow, I like this unusefulness! :-)
> >
> >Marc
> >--
> >Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
