Had to try this again. Probably not interesting unless you've 
experimented with this type of thing yourself, but my new edge-rounding 
algorithm is very sophisticated. Going for a machined-edge, CSG kind of 
look. I don't *think* a better edge could be made in a modeler, because 
the algorithms are too slow for a modeler.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'round_star.jpg' (28 KB)

Preview of image 'round_star.jpg'

> Had to try this again. Probably not interesting unless you've
> experimented with this type of thing yourself, but my new edge-rounding
> algorithm is very sophisticated.

Maybe I missed this before, but what is this algorithm? Is it an SDL thing
or some sort of patch?

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

Slime wrote:
>>Had to try this again. Probably not interesting unless you've
>>experimented with this type of thing yourself, but my new edge-rounding
>>algorithm is very sophisticated.
> 
> 
> Maybe I missed this before, but what is this algorithm? Is it an SDL thing
> or some sort of patch?
> 

Just as SDL thing. I posted a similar shape a while ago. The edges 
looked *decent*, but only because I made the curves very small. The 
whole thing got me thinking about the odd parts of rounding a shape like 
this. There are no obvious solutions. Compromises have to be made, and I 
did some experiments to find what arrangement of compromises made the 
most attractive shape.

The corner bends are all perfectly cylindrical, like a CSG rounded cube, 
but the corners won't meet in a sphere like a cube's corners. The bends 
are all different radii, but the width of the bends is perfectly equal 
between edges. This is the best solution IMO (equal radii curves of 
different widths being another possibility), but it is possibly flawed. 
I've failed to think of a better way to join a concave curved edge with 
two convex curved edges of a smaller radius. What I've got here might be 
as good as that situation can possibly look, and, looking at some of the 
machined parts around here, looks like the same compromise made by some 
manufacturers and welders.

There *are* differences, however subtle, between this and what would 
come out of a modeler.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:41b4df6d$1@news.povray.org
> Slime wrote:
>>> Had to try this again. Probably not interesting unless you've
>>> experimented with this type of thing yourself, but my new
>>> edge-rounding algorithm is very sophisticated.
>>
>>
>> Maybe I missed this before, but what is this algorithm? Is it an
>> SDL thing or some sort of patch?
>>
>
> Just as SDL thing. I posted a similar shape a while ago. The edges
> looked *decent*, but only because I made the curves very small. The
> whole thing got me thinking about the odd parts of rounding a shape
> like this. There are no obvious solutions. Compromises have to be
> made, and I did some experiments to find what arrangement of
> compromises made the most attractive shape.
>
> The corner bends are all perfectly cylindrical, like a CSG rounded
> cube, but the corners won't meet in a sphere like a cube's corners.
> The bends are all different radii, but the width of the bends is
> perfectly equal between edges. This is the best solution IMO (equal
> radii curves of different widths being another possibility), but it
> is possibly flawed. I've failed to think of a better way to join a
> concave curved edge with two convex curved edges of a smaller
> radius. What I've got here might be as good as that situation can
> possibly look, and, looking at some of the machined parts around
> here, looks like the same compromise made by some manufacturers and
> welders.
> There *are* differences, however subtle, between this and what would
> come out of a modeler.

Surely it depends on the modeller?  In something like ProEngineer you have 
lots of complex options to specify exactly what it does in the situations 
you mention, far more than I understand or have needed to use so far :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> "Shay" wrote in message
>> There *are* differences, however subtle, between this and what
>> would come out of a modeler.

> Surely it depends on the modeller?  In something like ProEngineer you have 
> lots of complex options to specify exactly what it does in the situations 
> you mention, far more than I understand or have needed to use so far :-)

I did say "would" not "could". :)

Surely you could follow this exact same procedure in anything 
sufficiently instructable. I'm only saying that you would have to know 
exactly what you want and follow a specific procedure in contrast to 
simply clicking "round edges".

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> scott wrote:
> 
>>> "Shay" wrote in message
>>> There *are* differences, however subtle, between this and what
>>> would come out of a modeler.
> 
> 
>> Surely it depends on the modeller?  In something like ProEngineer you 
>> have lots of complex options to specify exactly what it does in the 
>> situations you mention, far more than I understand or have needed to 
>> use so far :-)
> 
> 
> I did say "would" not "could". :)
> 
> Surely you could follow this exact same procedure in anything 
> sufficiently instructable. I'm only saying that you would have to know 
> exactly what you want and follow a specific procedure in contrast to 
> simply clicking "round edges".

True. However the "bevel edges" option available in many mesh and nurbs 
modelers will instantly round sharp corners on a surprisingly large 
number of complex objects. However it sounds like your macro is easier 
still in many circumstances, plus its pure SDL!:) Nice work.

Post a reply to this message

You do good work.  The interesting thing for POVCOMP is I'm wondering what 
would be the value-add of a very high mag zoom in on one small area of the 
image.

Post a reply to this message

Thomas Lake wrote:
> 
> However the "bevel edges" option available in many mesh and nurbs 
> modelers will instantly round sharp corners on a surprisingly large 
> number of complex objects.

I'm not suggesting that rounding mesh corners is by any means a novel 
idea. Consider this in the same vein as radiosity or media tweaking. 
Nothing new, just getting everything just right for a specific instance.

I think that it's easy for something to be beautiful when it's made very 
well. I never intended to do anything with this except mess with the 
edges, but I think the result is very attractive.

/The knobby shape and a sort of a low-key, Nintendo, cartoon violence 
vibe with the stars and brightish colors keep bringing the term 'monkey 
fist' to mind./

The "perfect" corners IMO make this more interesting than it would 
otherwise be. I think it might even look good in a little 5" frame, 
though not my taste for wall decoration.

> Nice work.

Thank you.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson wrote:
> You do good work.

Thank you very much.

> The interesting thing for POVCOMP is I'm wondering what 
> would be the value-add of a very high mag zoom in on one
> small area  of the image.

<expletive deleted>

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

> Had to try this again. Probably not interesting unless you've 
> experimented with this type of thing yourself, but my new edge-rounding 
> algorithm is very sophisticated. Going for a machined-edge, CSG kind of 
> look. I don't *think* a better edge could be made in a modeler, because 
> the algorithms are too slow for a modeler.
> 
>  -Shay
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

I love this model, could you send me the source (to include in another 
scene of me) ?

Post a reply to this message