 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's a nice object! I just wanted to say this because you're going on to
> texturing now... Btw, I don't know if the guns are a good addition. The
more
> additions, the more confusing look. It's somehow less clear now (just a
> little).
I think those are counter rotaters or whatever the term is for little jets
that make sure the body doesn't rotate. I could be wrong though.
Corey
--
schitzo.y0ru.net
blob{threshold#macro _(s,i,g)#if(s)sphere{20*(i-<5,1,-10>)16,1pigment
{rgb 9}}_(s-1i+g,g)#end#end.7_(4x,x)_(2,0y)_(5y*2x)_(5x*6x)_(3<6,
1>2*x)_(2<6,2>4*x)}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
>
>
>I think those are counter rotaters or whatever the term is for little jets
>that make sure the body doesn't rotate. I could be wrong though.
>
You're right...I tried to put the holes on the legs but it was not very
good, I put them on longer "arms" and it was not very good too...I
wanted to put them on the main elliptical shape but I thought they won't
be far enough from the center and so would have been useless...
It's true that now, the shape of the object is less "pure"...it took me
a long time to find something that will not destroy completly the main
aspect of it...
My design skills are really poor, I have a lot of work on this scene...
David.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 09:53:14 -0400, "Corey Woodworth" <cdw### [at] mpinet net>
wrote:
>
>> It's a nice object! I just wanted to say this because you're going on to
>> texturing now... Btw, I don't know if the guns are a good addition. The
>more
>> additions, the more confusing look. It's somehow less clear now (just a
>> little).
>
>I think those are counter rotaters or whatever the term is for little jets
>that make sure the body doesn't rotate. I could be wrong though.
While they are an improvement on the 'technical' side, the objects did look
better without them...
Suggestion: you could double-up the legs as counter-rotation thingeys by
integrating the airholes on on side up the upper legs?
--
Marc van den Dikkenberg
--
The PowerBasic Archives -- http://www.xlsior.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It seems like there's enough room to put the air holes on the calf part of
the leg, the part between the feet and the knee.
I wish I had one of those to find my car keys in the morning.
--
#macro Q(A,E,W)box{-A/2,A/2 pigment{rgb W*9}translate E*A+W/1000}#end#macro
M(D,
E)#local A=1/pow(3,D);#if(D<3)#local
C=D+1;union{M(C,1)M(C,x+y)M(C,x+z)M(C,y+z)M
(C,x+y-z)M(C,x+z-y)M(C,y+z-x)M(C,x-y)M(C,z-x)M(C,y-z)M(C,y-x)M(C,x-z)M(C,z-y
)M(C
,x-y-z)M(C,y-x-z)M(C,z-x-y)translate A*E}#else
Q(A,E,x)Q(A,E,y)Q(A,E,z)#end#end
union{M(0,0)rotate<45,145,0>translate z*2}//Andrew
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"gemelli david" <d.g### [at] xlstudiocom> wrote in message
news:3D4### [at] xlstudiocom...
>
> It's true that now, the shape of the object is less "pure"...it took me
> a long time to find something that will not destroy completly the main
> aspect of it...
>
Couldn't you just add an internal fly-wheel to take care of the
counter-rotation?
Well.... I say "add", but you'd have to be pretty obsessive to actually add it
;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well.... I say "add", but you'd have to be pretty obsessive to actually
add it
> ;)
Wadayamean obsessive? I do this on a regular basis. I guess my thought is
that even though you can't see it, *I'll* know.
-tgq
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TinCanMan wrote:
> I guess my thought is that even though you can't see it, *I'll* know.
>
> -tgq
>
>
Thats the spirit. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Couldn't you just add an internal fly-wheel to take care of the
> counter-rotation?
>
> Well.... I say "add", but you'd have to be pretty obsessive to actually
add it
> ;)
But then the fly-wheel would make turning difficult since it'd try to force
a level path. And of course he'd have to add it, for the body cut-away
renders to show how it works, when he tries to sell the concept to the
military for millions of dollars... :-)
--
#macro Q(A,E,W)box{-A/2,A/2pigment{rgb 9*W}translate E*A+W/1000}#end#macro
M(D,E)#local A=1/pow(3,D);#if(D<3)#local
C=D+1;union{M(C,1)M(C,x+y)M(C,x+z)M(C,y+z)M(C,x+y-z)M(C,x+z-y)M(C,y+z-x)M(C,
x-y)M(C,z-x)M(C,y-z)M(C,y-x)M(C,x-z)M(C,z-y)M(C,x-y-z)M(C,y-x-z)M(C,z-x-y)tr
anslate A*E}#else Q(A,E,x)Q(A,E,y)Q(A,E,z)#end#end
union{M(0,0)rotate<45,145,0>translate z*2}//Andrew
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"gemelli david" <d.g### [at] xlstudiocom> wrote in message
news:3D3### [at] xlstudiocom...
> once again, the flying thingy....
> now, I will work on a complete scene and make more experiments to find a
> good metal texture for the objects...
>
> comments/ideas welcome as usual.
I didn't mean to start a controversy with the counter-rotating bit...
I agree that the arms, while they would work, don't look as good. I
could suggest vanes in the body, ports in the upper thigh, a segment of the
upper thigh that is a rotating cylinder that acts as a sail against the
downdraft, the same arms but sticking out from below or similar "turbo"
ports in the spherical undercarriage.
The rotating cylinders seem coolest to me. But then, I have always been
fascinated with the rotating sail idea. But they add a moving part. Probably
the best technical plan is smaller turboports on the bottom, 3
Quarter-spheres with vents sort of between the legs. Not as large a lever,
but if you just add more thrust...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3d4014e0@news.povray.org>, "Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk>
wrote:
> Couldn't you just add an internal fly-wheel to take care of the
> counter-rotation?
It would add a lot of mass to something that already has to carry quite
a bit, take up space, and make maneuvering a bit trickier. I think
counterrotating blades would be better. Those little extensions
(rockets?) don't look very powerful, larger turbines would be better and
could both stabilize the body and power the blades.
Or how about a 3 stage thing: those lift blades as they are, stubbier,
fatter blades on a middle section that spins the other direction at a
lower rate, and the cargo legs would spin slowest to keep the cargo
intact. Sensors would be on the middle section, they would get a 360
degree sweep of the surrounding area, and the spinning would protect it
from laser weapons which would have to concentrate on one area to heat
it up.
I think they need more vertical streamlining though...they are pushing a
lot of air against themselves. With that paint job, looks like they are
ready for snowy conditions...that thing could be for drilling a hole in
ice (using the blades for rotation power instead of lift?), and that
could be a rack for dropping torpedoes into the resulting hole. The
torpedoes could wait in the ice until they detect a sub beneath them,
activate a heat charge to melt free of the ice, and then go after the
sub.
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
