"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> A close-up of the windshield area. (Hmm... it looks like the outline needs even
> MORE spheres; or else my technique needs some additional finessing.)

Hi Kenneth,

Nice model, I assume the muffler is the bit at the back towards the bottoms, if
not how did you do that shape in CSG?

As several people have already pointed out, I would go for a blob for the window
surround, I tend to always use blobs for this kind of modelling (unless I can
workout a good spline path for a sphere_sweep). If you can workout the spline
(not one of my strong points) then a sphere sweep would be best.

I have been looking through old unfinished scenes as well, mainly ones I gave up
waiting for the renders to complete due to heavy use of isosurfaces but with a
quad core, POV v3.7 and a bit more patience I may get them finished.

Sean

Post a reply to this message

Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:

>
> How about blobbing those spheres? A sphere_sweep could also be used here.
> Both would allow you to use less spheres.

Yes, *any* technique to use less spheres (or rather, less scanning/tracing
points in my technique) would be a welcome improvement.

I haven't worked with sphere_sweeps in quite awhile; the artifacts they used to
have (in the v3.6 and 3.61 days) made working with them difficult.  Actually, I
do remember your advice from the past--use *short sections* of sphere_sweeps
(i.e., not too many points) then union those together, which helps eliminate the
artifacts. So I might give that idea a try. It would definitely make a
*smoother* outline than my spheres.

Post a reply to this message

"s.day" <s.d### [at] uelacuk> wrote:

>
> Nice model, I assume the muffler is the bit at the back towards the bottoms, if
> not how did you do that shape in CSG?

It's another sPatch bicubic mesh. (I wouldn't have any clue how to make that
same shape using CSG!!) I still like using sPatch; it's an *old* app and with a
few quirks; but it has a very simple interface, to build objects point-by-point.
It does only one thing--no bells and whistles--but that's a welcome relief from
the usual (and generally complex) 'application that does everything.'
>
> As several people have already pointed out, I would go for a blob for
> the window
> surround, I tend to always use blobs for this kind of modelling (unless I can
> workout a good spline path for a sphere_sweep). If you can workout the spline
> (not one of my strong points) then a sphere sweep would be best.

I have to admit that working with blobs has never been my strong point; it's
been years since I tried them! But I need to re-educate myself--they seem to be
a really powerful modelling tool. (Especially after seeing Nekar Zeno's
wonderful recent 'melting blob-men' image, of his jazz musicians.)

The spline requirement for the sphere_sweep is indeed a tricky thing to come up
with (re: my particular windshield outline.) What I imagine is that the spline
might not end up exactly following the correct curve. But that's just
theorizing; I should give it a chance, to see what happens.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:16:49 +0200, Kenneth <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:
>
>>
>> How about blobbing those spheres? A sphere_sweep could also be used  
>> here.
>> Both would allow you to use less spheres.
>
> Yes, *any* technique to use less spheres (or rather, less  
> scanning/tracing
> points in my technique) would be a welcome improvement.
>
> I haven't worked with sphere_sweeps in quite awhile; the artifacts they  
> used to
> have (in the v3.6 and 3.61 days) made working with them difficult.   
> Actually, I
> do remember your advice from the past--use *short sections* of  
> sphere_sweeps
> (i.e., not too many points) then union those together, which helps  
> eliminate the
> artifacts. So I might give that idea a try. It would definitely make a
> *smoother* outline than my spheres.
>
I guess I've just been lucky with the sphere sweeps. The neon lights in my  
busker scene is all sphere sweeps.


-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

OK, I made some subtle changes and improvements:

* added a 'quilted' normal pattern to the flashing lights
* some 'bumpers' onto the front--more traced spheres. (Why a flying police car
would need bumpers is a mystery, though!)
* and finally added some occupants! (My 'generic human' CSG model that I've been
working on for years.) They needed faces, so I used a photo of myself. They're
twins!

And I managed to smooth out the raised outline around the windshield, by
re-writing my eval_pigment 'image_map scanning' code to be more precise. There
are many more spheres now, and no gaps. (Part of the problem was human error--my
top-down windshield image render was made at 3000X3000 pixels, but I was
scanning it at an odd reduced rez.) I wanted to get this code working correctly,
before attempting a different technique for the outline. I think it looks pretty
good as-is, except in extreme close-up.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'police_car_w2.jpg' (328 KB)

Preview of image 'police_car_w2.jpg'

Better and better indeed.

Something which troubles me: why are those dials *behind* the pilots? I 
would expect them in front of them. Also, the pilots appear to be a bit 
too large in comparison with the craft.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 03 May 2013 13:07:28 +0200, Kenneth <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> And I managed to smooth out the raised outline around the windshield, by
> re-writing my eval_pigment 'image_map scanning' code to be more precise.  
> There
> are many more spheres now, and no gaps. (Part of the problem was human  
> error--my
> top-down windshield image render was made at 3000X3000 pixels, but I was
> scanning it at an odd reduced rez.) I wanted to get this code working  
> correctly,
> before attempting a different technique for the outline. I think it  
> looks pretty
> good as-is, except in extreme close-up.
>

It's very easy to convert spheres like this into blobs:
Just use "blob{" as you would to make a "union{" of spheres
Then change "sphere{SpherePos, SphereRadius etc}"
to "sphere{SpherePos, SphereRadius, BlobStrength etc}"

Start with a BlobStrength of 1. If it is too thick or thin, change it  
accordingly.


-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Better and better indeed.
>
> Something which troubles me: why are those dials *behind* the pilots? I
> would expect them in front of them. Also, the pilots appear to be a bit
> too large in comparison with the craft.
>
> Thomas

And they appear to be naked too.  You can just tell by the way they are avoiding
each other's gaze...

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Better and better indeed.
>
> Something which troubles me: why are those dials *behind* the pilots? I
> would expect them in front of them.

Hmm, good point. My 'idea' is that the pilots are supposed to be almost
completely surrounded by dials and gauges and stuff. Honestly, though, I came up
with that conception *after* I added those dials-- just to mentally justify the
addition :-O  Practically speaking, the back wall of the cockpit is the only
location where they can be visible, and it needed some kind of detail there.

> Also, the pilots appear to be a bit too large in comparison with the craft.

Yeah, that's an on-going debate I'm having with myself (which actually has
nothing to do with the police car.) There is another, more 'important' model in
my animated scene, one that also has a human occupant--and he's scaled a certain
way to match that particular model. I'm trying to match the police car occupants
to his scale--without changing the scales of the overall models themselves
(their relative sizes are just the way I want them to be.) Solution: I'll adjust
the scale when I put this police car back into the main scene, where I can see
everything at once.

Post a reply to this message

"Nekar Xenos" <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>
> It's very easy to convert spheres like this into blobs:
> Just use "blob{" as you would to make a "union{" of spheres
> Then change "sphere{SpherePos, SphereRadius etc}"
> to "sphere{SpherePos, SphereRadius, BlobStrength etc}"
>
> Start with a BlobStrength of 1. If it is too thick or thin, change it
> accordingly.
>

Hey, thanks for the example code. I'll try this out and see what happens. I'm
guessing that I don't need to 'scan/trace' my image_map and model at the
high-resolution I've been using, as blobs are joined together smoothly,
automatically filling in the intervening gaps.

BTW (and this is a bit off-topic): For your jazz-musician scene and its
neon-signs (the sphere_sweeps), did you experience any of the 'clipping'
problems that are being discussed? I didn't see any obvious problems in your
renders.

Post a reply to this message