 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres schrieb:
> Hi All:
>
> I was recently playing with Eagle3D, trying to enhance the texturing and
> lighting. Eagle3D comes with an extensive and very good library of
> electronic parts, and it does a very good job translating an Eagle board
> into a POV-Ray scene, but the default setup is somewhat boring, and the
> textures of most components are a bit simplistic.
Wow!
As I am the author of Eagle3D (and I know that my
lightning/texturing/...) is far from being nice I really would like to
know what you changed (besides a lot more reflections) to get this result.
--
mat### [at] matwei de
http://www.matwei.de
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> That's exactly what computer bugs look like! :-)
But has anyone ever seen them actually? :)
Seriously now, I'm not sure if a spider qualifies as a bug... if it has
the same meaning as the spanish word "bicho", it should cover almost
anything disgusting that looks like an insect.
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Neat :) A long time ago I was working on a library of CSG objects that
> would be electronic components. This might inspire me to go back to
> working on that CSG library again.
Well, I'm not an engineer, but it looks to me like Eagle3D has already a
very good library... perhaps it can be used without an Eagle board file,
just using manually the includes on your POV scenes. Anyhow, I also
understand most POV users (including myself), love reinventing the wheel
just for the fun of it...
> I like the spider, btw, very cute. No need for absolute accuracy unless
> your goal was total photorealism.
Well, realism is always my goal, but sometimes I'm too lazy to achieve it.
In this case, I discovered that modeling insects with Wings3D is much easier
than I thought... so I will try to get it more close to a real spider
(excluding hair, of course).
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> schreef in bericht
news:4a8cfa0e@news.povray.org...
>> That's exactly what computer bugs look like! :-)
>
> But has anyone ever seen them actually? :)
>
> Seriously now, I'm not sure if a spider qualifies as a bug... if it has
> the same meaning as the spanish word "bicho", it should cover almost
> anything disgusting that looks like an insect.
I think that bug and bicho are more or less synonymous in their meaning, but
biologically spiders are not insects (6 legs) but arthropods (8 legs).
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Excellent work!
Thanks!
> Materials must be more dull though for realism, both plastic and also, to
> some degree, metal ones.
>
Yeah... I think I abused of reflections a bit. :)
> DOF needs even more samples I guess.
Yes, it only has 35 samples... mostly because the reflections are all
blurred with 24 layers, and DOF is really slow with these.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Raiford" <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:4a8c2043$1@news.povray.org...
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>>
>> PS Good shot by the way :-)
>
> Hehe, Thanks :) Given all the criticism received as of late ;)
Yeah... but here it works perfectly ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> This is a case where a relatively strong DoF does a good job. It
> emphasises that the scale is rather small. Good macrophotography effect.
Thanks! Indeed, I was lucky and only needed 3 attempts to find the correct
amount of aperture...
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I make a point of NOT looking closely at spiders! :-p They give me the
> creeps.
Well, I too don't like confronting insects/spiders in RL, but I can handle
pictures of them without any problem... :)
> Your's is just right, I wouldn't change a thing!!!!! Any more realistic,
> and I'll have nightmares.
Then better don't look at my next WIP... ;)
> Beautiful image.
Thanks!
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres schrieb:
>> DOF needs even more samples I guess.
>
> Yes, it only has 35 samples... mostly because the reflections are all
> blurred with 24 layers, and DOF is really slow with these.
You know that with DOF active you can get away with far less layers?
(provided you're using micro-, not macronormals)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>> Neat :) A long time ago I was working on a library of CSG objects that
>> would be electronic components. This might inspire me to go back to
>> working on that CSG library again.
>
> Well, I'm not an engineer, but it looks to me like Eagle3D has already a
> very good library... perhaps it can be used without an Eagle board file,
> just using manually the includes on your POV scenes. Anyhow, I also
> understand most POV users (including myself), love reinventing the wheel
> just for the fun of it...
>
Yep! Absolutely ;) I'm very tempted to play with Eagle and Eagle3D now
... maybe this weekend. But, there's a certain amount of enjoyment in
doing all of the modeling on your own. I had actually created a texture
macro that would generate the bands for a resistor, based on it's value,
and a couple other parameters (tolerance, etc...)
>> I like the spider, btw, very cute. No need for absolute accuracy
>> unless your goal was total photorealism.
>
> Well, realism is always my goal, but sometimes I'm too lazy to achieve
> it.
> In this case, I discovered that modeling insects with Wings3D is much
> easier
> than I thought... so I will try to get it more close to a real spider
> (excluding hair, of course).
Ah, Can't wait to see it :) As always, you produce some of the most
stunning images!
> --
> Jaime
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
