 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" wrote in message news:51f0ca6b@news.povray.org...
> You'd actually have to ask Chris Cason whether that Wishlist still exists;
> I /think/ the books and hardware that were on that list have all been
> donated by now.
I think I found the list. You're right: empty. Every programmer I know is
constantly reading books. Someone should put something up there.
> So what you are saying is that you also beveled the transition between the
> "petals" and the tori forming the end of the small-hole extrusions; is
> that the essence of it?
I /think/ so. For each small hole, I used 1 object for the hole, 1 object to
bound, and 16 objects to build the extrusion, though the 16 could be
optimized to 14. That's probably where the majority of the object count
difference can be found.
> Sounds like you used clipping as a substitute for intersection, is that
> what you're saying?
Correct. I didn't sit down and count intersection tests to make sure that
was the most efficient way. Maybe it isn't.
> Okay, okay - I'll try to come up with formulae for all those parameters...
As far as I'm concerned, hand-coding is hand-coding, by hook or by crook
(though my way seems a lot more fun).
Priggish professional programmers are the reason I don't post code in these
forums. One told me that I shouldn't be coding algorithms if I don't know
what a stack is. That's like my saying he shouldn't be writing newsgroup
posts if he doesn't know what a chiasmus is.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cool CSG work, Shay!
For some reason I knew clipka would be the winner (that train he was working on
a while back was a clue).
The attached image shows how far I got yesterday before quitting. Two features
are missing, AFAIK: the lobe tips aren't rounded; the lobe holes are
nonexistent. But at least it's all wrapped up in a (somewhat) tidy macro :)
Sam
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'shaycsgchallengeb.png' (381 KB)
Preview of image 'shaycsgchallengeb.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/25/2013 05:13 PM, Samuel Benge wrote:
> For some reason I knew clipka would be the winner (that train he was working on
> a while back was a clue).
LOL ... my money was on you ;-) Nice job!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Clipka posted the CSG first. You posted the math first. Can we call it a
tie?
That train was impressive. Used prisms*, so, imo, a whole other animal.
A CSG (primitive primitives) sub-round of the tcrtc might draw some
interesting entries.
-Shay
* if you count prisms (and sweep approximations), you have to (?) count
triangles, and is it really CSG at that point? It's a somewhat arbitrary
distinction, but "real" CSG makes for a better game, imo.
"Samuel Benge" <stb### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
news:web.51f194e13a6d0c04eb1d220f0@news.povray.org...
> Cool CSG work, Shay!
>
> For some reason I knew clipka would be the winner (that train he was
> working on
> a while back was a clue).
>
> The attached image shows how far I got yesterday before quitting. Two
> features
> are missing, AFAIK: the lobe tips aren't rounded; the lobe holes are
> nonexistent. But at least it's all wrapped up in a (somewhat) tidy macro
> :)
>
> Sam
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> LOL ... my money was on you ;-) Nice job!
It took me too long to figure out what was needed to produce the basic shape: 1)
a latitudinal torus macro (was easy to make); 2) a proper method for smoothly
joining torii together on a sphere (VAngle() was used for measuring distances
spherically between torus centers).
"Shay" <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> Clipka posted the CSG first. You posted the math first.
Who, me?
> Can we call it a tie?
If I were to claim a(ny) prize, I'd have sky_sphere-based textured fog make its
debut in the next version of POV-Ray :D (although I do realize it's not that
sort of wishlist :P)
> That train was impressive. Used prisms*, so, imo, a whole other animal.
Well if I remember correctly his train also used torii, cylinders and spheres to
smoothly join various types of surfaces with one another, and the kind of
thinking required to do that would go a long way toward meeting your challenge
advantageously ;)
> A CSG (primitive primitives) sub-round of the tcrtc might draw some
> interesting entries.
I vote for a CSG sub-round!
Sam
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'shaycsgchallengec.jpg' (351 KB)
Preview of image 'shaycsgchallengec.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 25.07.2013 21:09, schrieb Shay:
>> So what you are saying is that you also beveled the transition between
>> the "petals" and the tori forming the end of the small-hole
>> extrusions; is that the essence of it?
>
> I /think/ so. For each small hole, I used 1 object for the hole, 1
> object to bound, and 16 objects to build the extrusion, though the 16
> could be optimized to 14. That's probably where the majority of the
> object count difference can be found.
Did you consider punching the hole through the petal /after/ adding the
extrusion? That might allow for a simpler extrusion, as you won't need
to punch a separate hole through it.
>> Sounds like you used clipping as a substitute for intersection, is
>> that what you're saying?
>
> Correct. I didn't sit down and count intersection tests to make sure
> that was the most efficient way. Maybe it isn't.
Thinking about it, I come to suspect that clipping is actually less
computationally intensive; after all, intersection testing is only
performed on the clipped object, while the clipping object is only
tested for insideness once an intersection has been found.
>> Okay, okay - I'll try to come up with formulae for all those
>> parameters...
>
> As far as I'm concerned, hand-coding is hand-coding, by hook or by crook
> (though my way seems a lot more fun).
I've got all the math sorted out by now (except for the more complex
hole extrusion stuff), so modifying the thing for e.g. 7-fold instead of
8-fold symmetry, changing the petals' size and other some such would now
be a piece of cake; no manual tweaking anymore.
> Priggish professional programmers are the reason I don't post code in
> these forums. One told me that I shouldn't be coding algorithms if I
> don't know what a stack is. That's like my saying he shouldn't be
> writing newsgroup posts if he doesn't know what a chiasmus is.
:-D
It's also like saying that a child shouldn't be playing with any toy if
it doesn't know how to play with it the way the designer intended.
Which is rubbish even if there is solid reason to play according to the
designer's rules (unless of course violation of those rules is seriously
dangerous); science has found out that children actually learn faster
how to use something properly if they've already spent some time toying
around with it as they seem fit, and there is plenty of reason to
suspect that this is the case for every learning process in every age.
As long as you code just for the fun of it, my stance is that coding is
fair game for everyone in every way they like.
(And no, I have not the slightest idea what a chiasmus is - I'd have to
google that ;-))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 25.07.2013 23:13, schrieb Samuel Benge:
> Cool CSG work, Shay!
>
> For some reason I knew clipka would be the winner (that train he was working on
> a while back was a clue).
Hey, the (intended) winner was the POV-Ray wishlist :-)
> The attached image shows how far I got yesterday before quitting. Two features
> are missing, AFAIK: the lobe tips aren't rounded; the lobe holes are
> nonexistent. But at least it's all wrapped up in a (somewhat) tidy macro :)
Looks really great!
Asthetically I do favor this one a lot over my own.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 26.07.2013 00:28, schrieb Shay:
> Clipka posted the CSG first. You posted the math first. Can we call it a
> tie?
>
> That train was impressive. Used prisms*, so, imo, a whole other animal.
No, not really. There, too, it was all about cutting stuff away and
adding stuff back in.
> * if you count prisms (and sweep approximations), you have to (?) count
> triangles, and is it really CSG at that point? It's a somewhat arbitrary
> distinction, but "real" CSG makes for a better game, imo.
The fun part is where you begin to round off the prisms. If you want to
both bevel the edges of the front and back sides as well as round off
the extruded shape itself (which is what I did for the train engine),
spine-based prisms won't get you anywhere, because (or so I believe for
certain reasons) if you widen or tighten a 3rd-order spline loop its new
path will generally not have a constant distance to the original path,
no matter how hard you try. So it's back to cylinders, tori and spheres
again.
The only places where I "cheated" were the smokestack, the sand boxes,
and the thick pipes leading from the boiler to the cylinders; these
elements were modeled using blobs.
Oh, and the person I placed on the engine wasn't CSG either of course :-).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 26.07.2013 03:26, schrieb Samuel Benge:
> If I were to claim a(ny) prize, I'd have sky_sphere-based textured fog make its
> debut in the next version of POV-Ray :D (although I do realize it's not that
> sort of wishlist :P)
:-D
There's only one reason I'm currently /not/ planning on adding such a
feature to the branch I'm working on: There's reason to believe it'll
make it into POV-Ray 3.7.1 faster than you can say "pretty please" (*),
and I'd rather have my branch copy that feature from there than vice
versa :-)
(* And I also have reason to believe that the first POV-Ray 3.7.1 trial
versions will pop out just shortly after the 3.7.0 release proper, and
that the first release of my own branch will come out more or less at
the same time as 3.7.0 proper.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-7-2013 4:55, clipka wrote:
> It's also like saying that a child shouldn't be playing with any toy if
> it doesn't know how to play with it the way the designer intended.
>
> Which is rubbish even if there is solid reason to play according to the
> designer's rules (unless of course violation of those rules is seriously
> dangerous); science has found out that children actually learn faster
> how to use something properly if they've already spent some time toying
> around with it as they seem fit, and there is plenty of reason to
> suspect that this is the case for every learning process in every age.
I thoroughly agree with that indeed!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
