Nice to see you've put Wings3d to good use! The polygon count seems to be
quite high or you're lucky with the shadows (those on the dog itself).

I'm also trying out Wings, but the technical stuff I'm trying to model takes
way too much time.

Good luck, hope to see more of your work.

Regards,
Hugo

Post a reply to this message

Very nice. I the dog made up of control point type surfaces? Would it be
possible to animate the dog by only moving a few points?

 -Shay

"Corey Woodworth" <cdw### [at] mpinetnet> wrote in message
news:3ccbc2c1$1@news.povray.org...

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <shi### [at] houstonrrcom> wrote in message
news:3ccc3f04@news.povray.org...
> Very nice. I the dog made up of control point type surfaces? Would it be
> possible to animate the dog by only moving a few points?

Well he is made up of a "control cage" but there is not bone system as I
think would be the next step if you wanted to make this model animatable in
a probgram like maya or softimage. I also smoothed this version a ton so the
control points probably have a lower range of influence. But If unsmooth it
the possible it would be easy to animate but really I don't know :)

Post a reply to this message

> Very nice. I the dog made up of control point type surfaces? Would it be
> possible to animate the dog by only moving a few points?

Wings3d does not yet support animation / bones, so the dog is not going to
bark or bite you, don't worry.. ;o) And I don't think it's possible to
control movement in an exported mesh2, because I found out it seems the
triangles are randomly placed in the data stream. Increased control might be
possible with clever use of a new material to each "bone" .. that will
clearly show up in the mesh data, easy to isolate and move.. But a smoothed
pulling of triangles between 2 "joints" will be a challange.

I can think of other ways too, but none of them seems easy at all....
Though, I admit that I don't know how the big commercial modellers do it.

Regards,
Hugo

Post a reply to this message

"Hugo" <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in news:3ccc6fcf@news.povray.org:

>> Very nice. I the dog made up of control point type surfaces? Would it
>> be possible to animate the dog by only moving a few points?
 
> I can think of other ways too, but none of them seems easy at all....
> Though, I admit that I don't know how the big commercial modellers do
> it. 

Once Wings3D supports bones, using the bones as control points for magnet 
deformation is one approach to consider.  However, this would be bit much 
to pull off in the SDL and is probably best implemented as a Pov patch.

IMO, improved mesh support (such as direct loading of a few standard 
formats, or at least a Pov-specific fast parsing binary mesh format) and 
mesh animation tools are something which should be seriously considered for 
Pov 4.  With the number of people these days who are using modelers other 
than Moray, the demand for decent mesh tools is both out there and growing.

Post a reply to this message

Coridon Henshaw <che### [at] sympaticoca> wrote in message
news:Xns### [at] 204213191226...
>
> mesh animation tools are something which should be seriously considered
for
> Pov 4.  With the number of people these days who are using modelers other
> than Moray, the demand for decent mesh tools is both out there and
growing.
>

I'm not sure that many in the pov community would use these tools. All of
these things require input which is difficult for some to generate without a
graphical interface.

Subdivision and nurbs utilities have both been coded for Pov-Ray, but I have
not yet seen a scene where either of these utilities has been used used.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On 28 Apr 2002 22:59:55 -0400, che### [at] sympaticoca (Coridon Henshaw) wrote:
> mesh animation tools are something which should be seriously considered for 
> Pov 4

Why for pov4 ? Feel free to start building it now !

ABX

Post a reply to this message

> I'm not sure that many in the pov community would use these tools. All of
> these things require input which is difficult for some to generate without
a
> graphical interface.
>
> Subdivision and nurbs utilities have both been coded for Pov-Ray, but I
have
> not yet seen a scene where either of these utilities has been used used.

I guess so. But POV has some strengths that commerical big packages don't
have, and it doesn't look like that will change soon. I think, more people
would discover this and use these possibilities (those who aren't scared off
by scripting) if they could easily get their output from their software into
POV.. For now, only still-models can be exported, but animation is becoming
more important these days..

I don't know how many people use Pov in connection with their still-models,
but it's probably more people than we see in the newsgroups.. It could
become even more, depending on how we shape and advertise the future of POV.

Regards,
Hugo

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 05:41:49 -0400, Corey Woodworth wrote:
> Not the greatest image but I'm really proud of the model, hope I can find a
> use for him. comments?
> 

He looks like the one with the wagalley tail:-)  Nice modelling. 

-- 
#local i=.1;#local I=(i/i)/i;#local l=(i+i)/i;#local ll=(I/i)/l;box{<-ll,
-((I/I)+l),-ll><ll,-l,ll>pigment{checker scale l}finish{ambient((I/l)/I)+
(l/I)}}sphere{<i-i,l-l,(I/l)>l/l pigment{rgb((I/l)/I)}finish{reflection((
I/l)/I)-(l/I)specular(I/l)/I}}light_source{<I-l,I+I,(I-l)/l>l/l} // Steve

Post a reply to this message

Coridon Henshaw wrote:
> 
> IMO, improved mesh support (such as direct loading of a few standard
> formats, or at least a Pov-specific fast parsing binary mesh format)
> mesh animation tools are something which should be seriously considered
> for Pov 4. 

I can only agree partly with you. POVRay is a renderer. IMHO this shouldn't
be changed. In particular, povray should include a modeler but modelers
should be kept separate from the rendering engine. This simplifies the 
task of writing and maintaining (one of) the best rendering software that 
can on a variety of platforms.

You are right in the request that povray should support such modelers --
at least to some extent. The concept of a human readable file format has
been proven to be useful in many applications. With the advent of a bunch
of XML file formats this number will even increase in future. If you are
worried about file sizes, a very easy and clean solution would be the
support of zipped files. Unzipping the file on the fly is already possible
nowadays.

IMHO it is not a good idea to support other file formats. Again it is
easier to factor out this functionality and support other file formats
via converters. So, I suggest to include some converters in the standard
distribution of povray. The GUI could even hide the fact that converters
are used from the user.

When it come to features like NURBs or Surface Subdivision, I agree that
supporting them in povray would be a big win. Modelers or converters 
would be easier to write in this case.

Just my 0.02 Euro
Thomas

Post a reply to this message