Tek <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message
news:3cae10a4@news.povray.org...
>
> IIRC the battlestar was a knock off of the ship designs in Star Wars! :)
>
> --

Perhaps, but the battlestar was better. More detail.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

I felt it was pandering to the public's perception of what's logical and robotic
without really thinking it through. If the only concerns are drone networking
(and defense) then a sphere is the only logical shape, because it is the one
that gives the most advantage. There has to be a reason to deviate from a
spherical design, and I reckon the reason is "it looks more robotic" :)

--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com


Hugo <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message news:3cae1751@news.povray.org...
> > I disagree. The borg ship is a very illogical design for a robotic race.
> Why's
> > it a cube? That's a fairly profound artistic statement!
>
> I consider it very logical. A cube has absolutely no artistic merit. It's
> just an efficient way to place drones in a network. The same with their
> spherical ships. And in space it doesn't matter what shape a ship has
> because there is no air to penetrate.
>
> Regards,
> Hugo
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Well, you guys got me thinking about macros to make Borg cubes, and I played
with it a little.  This is not exactly Borg, but "borg-like".  It still needs a
lot more, like some intelligence in the macros because they are very literal and
stupid right now.  But overall, it has a nice feel to it.
    Not Foss, but okay.

Cheers!

Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip

light_source{0#macro k(_)sphere{13*z+i*_.5pigment{agate}finish{phong.3}}#end
1}#macro _(s,i,g)#if(s)k(1)k(-1)_(s-1i+g,g)#end#end _(3x+3*y<2,-2>)_(2x,y)_(
2x-y,x)_(4x*3,-y)_(4<3,1>x)_(2x*6,-y)

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'Borgthis.jpg' (154 KB)

Preview of image 'Borgthis.jpg'

In article <3cae686a@news.povray.org>,
 "Sir Charles W. Shults III" <aic### [at] cflrrcom> wrote:

>     Well, you guys got me thinking about macros to make Borg cubes, and I 
> played with it a little.  This is not exactly Borg, but "borg-like".  
> It still needs a lot more, like some intelligence in the macros 
> because they are very literal and stupid right now.  But overall, it 
> has a nice feel to it.

1: Borg cubes aren't shiny. ;-)
The larger parts could use some more detailed texture, and the big 
highlights look off.

2: Your ship is glowing. It appears almost completely evenly lit, but 
there's nothing to light it. Drop ambient down to 0 and use a single 
bright light source for the sun, and maybe scatter a few lights with a 
short falloff distance around the ship itself.

-- 
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

Yes, this is a first step test of the macros and their results.  I had the
ambient set high enough to make out the details all around.  I wanted to be
certain of seeing what the textures and parts would look like before going to my
final settings.  Once I have the mechanical placement and arrangement worked
out, I will put everything back to a dull finish and maybe even a negative
ambient to heighten the shadows.
    In a final rendering, it seems that the things you cannot directly see make
a great deal of difference.  In real photographs, there is far more detail than
"strikes the eye", so to speak.  I always enhance my lighting at first so I can
be assured that those details will be present.  Then, when I go to a more
realistic lighting, the details blend in almost to invisibility, but definitely
add an atmosphere of realism.
    Perhaps our perception of what is real and what is rendered is delimited by
those details that we perceive subliminally, without actually "seeing" them.

Cheers!

Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip

light_source{0#macro k(_)sphere{13*z+i*_.5pigment{agate}finish{phong.3}}#end
1}#macro _(s,i,g)#if(s)k(1)k(-1)_(s-1i+g,g)#end#end _(3x+3*y<2,-2>)_(2x,y)_(
2x-y,x)_(4x*3,-y)_(4<3,1>x)_(2x*6,-y)

Post a reply to this message

In article <3caf79c9$1@news.povray.org>,
 "Sir Charles W. Shults III" <aic### [at] cflrrcom> wrote:

>     Yes, this is a first step test of the macros and their results.  I had 
> the ambient set high enough to make out the details all around.  I 
> wanted to be certain of seeing what the textures and parts would look 
> like before going to my final settings.  Once I have the mechanical 
> placement and arrangement worked out, I will put everything back to a 
> dull finish and maybe even a negative ambient to heighten the 
> shadows.

If you just need lighting for details, try a light_source at the camera 
position. This shows a lot more detail and contrast, because you still 
get shading from surfaces at different angles instead of a flat "base 
level" of illumination, but everything visible from the camera is 
illuminated.

-- 
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

Good idea.  I'll try that now.

Cheers!

Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip

Post a reply to this message

I've got a couple of those books - they are pretty good.

I'd agree that viewing on the web doesn't do the book justice.

To all of you who don't have the book: BUY THE BOOK <G>.  The web is great
but pictures of a hot tub don't relax the back.

                  == John ==

"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
news:3cadc759$1@news.povray.org...

> Perhaps you should try to get a copy of his book, "XXIrst Century Foss".

Post a reply to this message