 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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] ignorancia org> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Among other things, Jaime Vives Piqueres saw fit to write:
> 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.
"Bug" can mean "bicho", which generally include spiders. But "bug" can also
mean "chinche", which is a particular kind of insect (Hemiptera).
--
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Wow!
Thanks!
> As I am the author of Eagle3D
Many thanks for it: I had a lot of fun playing with it!
As I said, I'm not an engineer, but looks like a very good addition for
Eagle to me. As far as I can tell, the geometry problem is very well solved,
but most of the textures are too simplistic (tough as usual, this is enough
for most users, from what I read on forums).
As for my changes to your code, this is what I did:
+ replace the light sources by an HDRI-mapped sphere
+ use radiosity and change default finish to ambient 0
+ add reflections almost everywhere, reduce saturation on some colors
+ add some focal blur
The main problem I found is that, except for a few common textures, the
component textures have to be searched inside the include files... not easy
when you have no idea what kind of part you are looking at.
Perhaps you could centralize all the textures on a specific include file,
and provide more "common" textures, so people adding parts to the library
could use textures from there, or add new ones if needed. Ideally, I will
avoid declaring textures directly inside the component macros.
Indeed, I just started to write a quick tutorial about these changes,
because some spanish users of Eagle3D asked me to do it. The spanish version
is almost finished, then I will translate it for the english version of my
site... I will keep you updated.
Regards,
P.S.: Here are some more shots, without the bug:
http://www.ignorancia.org/uploads/experiments/eagle3d/wips/modsmega-01.jpg
http://www.ignorancia.org/uploads/experiments/eagle3d/wips/modsmega-02.jpg
http://www.ignorancia.org/uploads/experiments/eagle3d/wips/modsmega-03.jpg
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
