 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignorancia org> schreef in bericht
news:4a8d879f@news.povray.org...
> 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
>
Good gracious! I am repeating others, but if I didn't know better, I would
say that these were photographs.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot schrieb:
>> 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
>>
>
> Good gracious! I am repeating others, but if I didn't know better, I would
> say that these were photographs.
I wouldn't go /that/ far: Some edges telltale the CG origin because they
lack beveling (especially the grey box headers); and the close-ups all
suffer from too clean reflection and the total absence of dirt.
But still - incredible!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
