You are correct, I differenced cylinder off of each edge. It it a lot easier
to see on the larger version. This version is probably a little blurry due
to resizing 50% and jpg compression.

There is a pattern to the rods, they only exist between boxes that are
directly nex to each other.

--
Paul Vanukoff
van### [at] primenetcom


David Fontaine wrote in message <3871765F.FA4878DC@faricy.net>...
>How are those rounded, because it looks like there are cylinders
differenced
>from the edges and there are still sharp edges on the boxes. Do those
>connecting rods follow any particular pattern?
>
>--
>Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
>___     ______________________________
> | \     |_       <dav### [at] faricynet>
> |_/avid |ontaine      <ICQ 55354965>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Thanks for the suggestions ... I agree it is very dark. I haven't worked out
the lighting yet, and plan to increase the gamma.

--
Paul Vanukoff
van### [at] primenetcom


David Heys wrote in message <38717A74.BF145DAE@gci.net>...

>Great image. :{) A bit dark though, and it may even be darker when you
print
>it. Depending on the kind of printer you plan to use, you'll probably want
to
>do a small test print. Most printers use CMYK versus a computer screen's
RGB.
>As to resolution for poster print, figure about 300 ppi (pixels per inch).
>So... 24x18 would be about 7200x5400 pixels.

Post a reply to this message

Not rounded, routered. As in the tool that can make cuts in the
sides of wood for that nice, styled look.

David Fontaine wrote:
> 
> How are those rounded, because it looks like there are cylinders differenced
> from the edges and there are still sharp edges on the boxes. Do those
> connecting rods follow any particular pattern?
> 
> --
> Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
> ___     ______________________________
>  | \     |_       <dav### [at] faricynet>
>  |_/avid |ontaine      <ICQ 55354965>

-- 
We are the POVRay of Borg.
Your data has been assimilated into the POVRay
users List of Ages
Resistance is in Ohms.

Post a reply to this message

I noticed there was a problem in my rod placement algorithm. There were no
rods in some places there should have been. I have fixed it.


--
Paul Vanukoff
van### [at] primenetcom


David Fontaine wrote in message <3871765F.FA4878DC@faricy.net>...
>How are those rounded, because it looks like there are cylinders
differenced
>from the edges and there are still sharp edges on the boxes. Do those
>connecting rods follow any particular pattern?

Post a reply to this message

It has a 'comfortable' feel to it, probably because it resembles building
blocks. It would look good rendered on a knitted carpet, IMO.

Paul Vanukoff wrote:

> I really like the way this came out. I've always liked images like this. It
> looks a lot better at the rendered size of 1024x768. I am thinking about
> moving the camera away a bit, adding a galaxy.inc background and making a
> poster of it. Does anyone have experience with that? What size should I
> render at if, say, I wanted a 24x18 inch poster?
>
> --
> Paul Vanukoff
> van### [at] primenetcom
>
>  [Image]

--
Samuel Benge

E-Mail: STB### [at] aolcom

Visit the still unfinished isosurface tutorial: http://members.aol.com/stbenge

Post a reply to this message

Paul Vanukoff wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the suggestions ... I agree it is very dark. I haven't worked out
> the lighting yet, and plan to increase the gamma.

Paul,

 Could you do me a favor ? The past few images of yours that you have
posted have been in the progressive .jpg format which my image viewing
program does not support. If you could save to regular .jpg for posting
here I would be able to view your images and possibly comment on them.

Thanks for your consideration in this matter.

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

Sure thing.

--
Paul Vanukoff
van### [at] primenetcom


Ken wrote in message <38724C97.864DC9FB@pacbell.net>...
>
>
>Paul Vanukoff wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestions ... I agree it is very dark. I haven't worked
out
>> the lighting yet, and plan to increase the gamma.
>
>Paul,
>
> Could you do me a favor ? The past few images of yours that you have
>posted have been in the progressive .jpg format which my image viewing
>program does not support. If you could save to regular .jpg for posting
>here I would be able to view your images and possibly comment on them.
>
>Thanks for your consideration in this matter.
>
>--
>Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
>http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

> Not rounded, routered. As in the tool that can make cuts in the
> sides of wood for that nice, styled look.

I misread the subject.

--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___     ______________________________
 | \     |_       <dav### [at] faricynet>
 |_/avid |ontaine      <ICQ 55354965>

Post a reply to this message

Paul:

Very nice image.  As for rendering for printing, I agree with David.  However,
a word of caution:  Be careful of the raw print file size, which is
substantially larger than the image file size.  I rendered an 8x10 image at 300
dpi (2400 x 3000) and it generated a 140MB print file that took
foooorrrreeeevvvveeeerrrrr to print.  The computer I used to print it only had
128MB of RAM and it printed on an Epson Stylus Photo 750 which isn't a very
high end printer.  These factors contributed to print time.  Good luck.

Dennis McDaniel
den### [at] inreachcom

Paul Vanukoff wrote:

> I really like the way this came out. I've always liked images like this. It
> looks a lot better at the rendered size of 1024x768. I am thinking about
> moving the camera away a bit, adding a galaxy.inc background and making a
> poster of it. Does anyone have experience with that? What size should I
> render at if, say, I wanted a 24x18 inch poster?
>
> --
> Paul Vanukoff
> van### [at] primenetcom
>
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

Thanks for the compliment and warning. I actually plan on taking my final
render to a professional print shop, so I ain't worried too much about file
size and print time ... :D

--
Paul Vanukoff
van### [at] primenetcom


Dennis McDaniel wrote in message <38757672.98711164@inreach.com>...
>Paul:
>
>Very nice image.  As for rendering for printing, I agree with David.
However,
>a word of caution:  Be careful of the raw print file size, which is
>substantially larger than the image file size.  I rendered an 8x10 image at
300
>dpi (2400 x 3000) and it generated a 140MB print file that took
>foooorrrreeeevvvveeeerrrrr to print.  The computer I used to print it only
had
>128MB of RAM and it printed on an Epson Stylus Photo 750 which isn't a very
>high end printer.  These factors contributed to print time.  Good luck.
>
>Dennis McDaniel
>den### [at] inreachcom
>

Post a reply to this message