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

> 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...)

   Perhaps Eagle/Eagle3D can be of help for you, because I think it has a way
  to expand the existing components library, via macros. This will free you
from modeling the board, and all the programming involved to have the
components properly placed, so you can focus on just modeling components.

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

> You know that with DOF active you can get away with far less layers? 
> (provided you're using micro-, not macronormals)

   Yes, I know, but they are macro-normals in this case. I alternate between
both methods for no apparent reason: I just can't decide which method is
better, and each one seems to fit better certain situations... Most of the
time, I just try both and see which one works best for that shape/pigment.

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> 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).

I'm also pretty sure that technically, a "bug" means a germ, not an insect. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres schrieb:
> http://www.ignorancia.org/uploads/experiments/eagle3d/wips/modsmega-01.jpg


This one looks /freakily/ realistic.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New schrieb:
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> 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).
> 
> I'm also pretty sure that technically, a "bug" means a germ, not an 
> insect. :-)

I'm pretty sure you're wrong - except as a secondary (or, rather, 
tertiary) meaning. (And I just checked, to find that 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bug agrees with me.)

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
>> I'm also pretty sure that technically, a "bug" means a germ, not an 
>> insect. :-)
> 
> I'm pretty sure you're wrong - except as a secondary (or, rather, 
> tertiary) meaning. 

I meant, entomologists won't use the word in a technical conversation - they 
will use the term "insect" or "arachnid" or whatever is appropriate. 
Doctors, however, will refer to infectious microbes as "bugs" to distinguish 
them from non-infectious microbes. (Just like someone programming computers 
won't refer to a program correctly following specs that differ from what the 
customer actually wanted "a bug", even if the customers might call it that.)

Of course informally a "bug" is a small insect-like creature.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> http://www.ignorancia.org/uploads/experiments/eagle3d/wips/modsmega-01.jpg

  Hey, no passing photographs for rendered images. That's cheating!

  Seriously, though, that's superbly photorealistic. :)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>>> I'm also pretty sure that technically, a "bug" means a germ, not an 
>>> insect. :-)
>>
>> I'm pretty sure you're wrong - except as a secondary (or, rather, 
>> tertiary) meaning. 
> 
> I meant, entomologists won't use the word in a technical conversation - 
> they will use the term "insect" or "arachnid" or whatever is 
> appropriate. Doctors, however, will refer to infectious microbes as 
> "bugs" to distinguish them from non-infectious microbes. (Just like 
> someone programming computers won't refer to a program correctly 
> following specs that differ from what the customer actually wanted "a 
> bug", even if the customers might call it that.)
> 
> Of course informally a "bug" is a small insect-like creature.
> 
The true bugs are hemiptera, IIRC, and if I can spell.  Been a long time 
since I've had to think about proper bug terms.

Rich

Post a reply to this message