 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This model was exported from ac3d trial version ... as per one of the
sslt caveats, the portions that I used sslt on (plastic hoses) I changed
those unions to merge to bundle all the smooth triangles together
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'work.png' (422 KB)
Preview of image 'work.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/03/06 13:29, Jim Holsenback a écrit :
> This model was exported from ac3d trial version ... as per one of the
> sslt caveats, the portions that I used sslt on (plastic hoses) I changed
> those unions to merge to bundle all the smooth triangles together
When you have an union of triangles, you only need to change "union" to
"mesh" and you get a nice mesh. It should be faster than the union
version, and especialy your merge.
If the triangles are correctly built, there should be no intrusion and
thus, no need for a merge.
Some modelers, and ac3d seems to be one of them, export their working
meshes as unions while they should export as mesh.
The difference between an union and a merge is that the merge suppress
the internal surfaces. It's also slower in many cases as the individual
parts are no longer individualy bounded. Each ray that encounter the
merge's bounding box need to be tested against all the components.
The goal of the union is to bundle many components into a single, easy
to manipulate, unit.
Nice modeling.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/06/2011 04:47 PM, Alain wrote:
> Le 2011/03/06 13:29, Jim Holsenback a écrit :
>> This model was exported from ac3d trial version ... as per one of the
>> sslt caveats, the portions that I used sslt on (plastic hoses) I changed
>> those unions to merge to bundle all the smooth triangles together
>
> When you have an union of triangles, you only need to change "union" to
> "mesh" and you get a nice mesh. It should be faster than the union
> version, and especialy your merge.
> If the triangles are correctly built, there should be no intrusion and
> thus, no need for a merge.
> Some modelers, and ac3d seems to be one of them, export their working
> meshes as unions while they should export as mesh.
well ... that's nice to know. A "vintage" version would have the tubing
covered in a loose weave cloth material, so maybe an improvement would
be to use uv_mapping to wrap a suitable image for that effect.
> The difference between an union and a merge is that the merge suppress
> the internal surfaces. It's also slower in many cases as the individual
> parts are no longer individualy bounded. Each ray that encounter the
> merge's bounding box need to be tested against all the components.
yep already knew that ... glass or otherwise transparent objects would
benefit!
> Nice modeling.
can't take credit for that ... t'was in their object library. I did
however notice some flaws once I started applying textures, so I'm going
to give it a go and see if I can make some improvements.
Hey thanks for setting me straight on being able to make the unions of
triangles as mesh :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback <jho### [at] povray org> wrote:
> This model was exported from ac3d trial version ... as per one of the
> sslt caveats, the portions that I used sslt on (plastic hoses) I changed
> those unions to merge to bundle all the smooth triangles together
Wow, this looks great, Jim. I've never heard of ac3d, I'll have to check it out,
thanks.
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 06.03.2011 19:29, schrieb Jim Holsenback:
> This model was exported from ac3d trial version ... as per one of the
> sslt caveats, the portions that I used sslt on (plastic hoses) I changed
> those unions to merge to bundle all the smooth triangles together
Oooh - nice one!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/06/2011 02:29 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> This model was exported from ac3d trial version ... as per one of the
> sslt caveats, the portions that I used sslt on (plastic hoses) I changed
> those unions to merge to bundle all the smooth triangles together
some improvements overs the first attempt ...
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'work.png' (827 KB)
Preview of image 'work.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/03/2011 10:32 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>
> some improvements overs the first attempt ...
Better and better.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/08/2011 06:34 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 08/03/2011 10:32 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>
>> some improvements overs the first attempt ...
>
> Better and better.
>
I think the challenge here is to come with a better viewing angle and/or
presentation ... I seem to be stuck on similar views with most of my
objects. I like the spot light presentation that I've seen in other
posts, but that kind of goes against the light dome with sunset motif
I'm currently using. Any ideas?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/03/2011 11:34 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>
> I think the challenge here is to come with a better viewing angle and/or
> presentation ... I seem to be stuck on similar views with most of my
> objects. I like the spot light presentation that I've seen in other
> posts, but that kind of goes against the light dome with sunset motif
> I'm currently using. Any ideas?
You’re asking the wrong person, really. I would try to align the
spotlight with the sun in your lightdome for a start and maybe a hint of
“rose” in the light colour to complement the reflected sky.
What I might do is create an animation, moving the camera up and down
and side to side to see if I could get a better viewing angle. The
atomiser seems a bit foreshortened due to looking down on it.
I like the doily is it an image_map?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/08/2011 08:20 AM, Stephen wrote:
> You’re asking the wrong person, really. I would try to align the
> spotlight with the sun in your lightdome for a start and maybe a hint of
> “rose” in the light colour to complement the reflected sky.
getting slightly better results using a different image in light dome,
(cityscape) ... I like the overhead spot look, so maybe the out in the
open sunset like I was using before was a poor choice.
> atomiser seems a bit foreshortened due to looking down on it.
yep that's exactly what was bugging me!
> I like the doily is it an image_map?
yes it is ... found a suitable image that had a black background. pulled
it into gimp and sampled the doily (real close up) in a couple of places
until I was able to get pretty much all of it ... then pasted it into an
image with transparent background
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/03/2011 12:45 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 03/08/2011 08:20 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> You’re asking the wrong person, really. I would try to align the
>> spotlight with the sun in your lightdome for a start and maybe a hint of
>> “rose” in the light colour to complement the reflected sky.
>
> getting slightly better results using a different image in light dome,
> (cityscape) ... I like the overhead spot look, so maybe the out in the
> open sunset like I was using before was a poor choice.
>
More than likely. An indoor light probe would be better. Somewhere out
there, there is a bedroom probe but for the life of me I can't find it.
>> atomiser seems a bit foreshortened due to looking down on it.
>
> yep that's exactly what was bugging me!
>
If the scene does not take long to render then experiment.
>> I like the doily is it an image_map?
>
> yes it is ... found a suitable image that had a black background. pulled
> it into gimp and sampled the doily (real close up) in a couple of places
> until I was able to get pretty much all of it ... then pasted it into an
> image with transparent background
>
It looks as it has depth. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 08.03.2011 11:32, schrieb Jim Holsenback:
> some improvements overs the first attempt ...
To be honest I liked the first ground texture better; it had more
"style", somehow.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> > getting slightly better results using a different image in light dome,
> > (cityscape) ... I like the overhead spot look, so maybe the out in the
> > open sunset like I was using before was a poor choice.
>
> More than likely. An indoor light probe would be better. Somewhere out
> there, there is a bedroom probe but for the life of me I can't find it.
Here's another lightprobe I shot a while ago, this time inside the lobby of the
Auckland Business School. I've used it before in images I posted here.
http://s3.edouard.info/ak-business-school.hdr
Cheers,
Edouard.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Edouard" <pov### [at] edouardinfo> wrote:
> Here's another lightprobe I shot a while ago, this time inside the lobby of the
> Auckland Business School. I've used it before in images I posted here.
>
> http://s3.edouard.info/ak-business-school.hdr
>
> Cheers,
> Edouard.
Nice one, thanks :)
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
