 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 31-1-2014 13:52, Stephen wrote:
>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
>>> Like with my tuit, I am a bit worried about sslt and text.
>>
>> Indeed, I thought that I would try to sink the text into the body for a
>> comparison.
>>
>>> I would like
>>> some learned comments on that particularly.
>>
>> Your text seems to be almost placed on the cylinder and not a part of
>> it. I
>> assume that you use a merge. Since my model has lots of differences, (I
>> differenced the basic model from a blank, to create a mould. Then
>> differenced
>> that from another one to get rid of the internal structure.
>>
>
> I also sank the text into the body, both positioned at the origin for
> the z-axis, and using a merge to get rid of the internal geometry. As
> the geometry of the letters is much smaller than the tuit's object, I
> concluded that they would need a smaller mm_per_unit value but I am not
> sure if I am right with that assumption.
>
> Thomas
>
It's not because some details are small that you need to reduce mm_per_unit.
That value need to reflect the actual scalling of your scene.
The default of 10 mean that each pov unit is actualy 1cm whide.
Setting it to 1 mean that one unit is 1mm whide and a value of 25.4 is
good for a scene constructed in inches.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 31.01.2014 14:05, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> I also sank the text into the body, both positioned at the origin for
> the z-axis, and using a merge to get rid of the internal geometry. As
> the geometry of the letters is much smaller than the tuit's object, I
> concluded that they would need a smaller mm_per_unit value but I am not
> sure if I am right with that assumption.
That assumption is absolutely...
... wrong :-P
Having two different mm_per_unit values wouldn't make any sense.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31-1-2014 20:39, clipka wrote:
> Am 31.01.2014 14:05, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>
>> I also sank the text into the body, both positioned at the origin for
>> the z-axis, and using a merge to get rid of the internal geometry. As
>> the geometry of the letters is much smaller than the tuit's object, I
>> concluded that they would need a smaller mm_per_unit value but I am not
>> sure if I am right with that assumption.
>
> That assumption is absolutely...
>
> ... wrong :-P
>
>
> Having two different mm_per_unit values wouldn't make any sense.
>
My explanation was ambiguous at best ;-) As the total object is a merge
of tuit + text, there is also only /one/ mm_per_unit value.
What I am struggling with is the /meaning/ of mm_per_unit. I am
understanding the sense of it but am unsure how to interpret it in a
scene. I need to ponder Alain's answer above a little longer, if my
brain accepts to fire up...
...so it doesn't matter what the /size/ of the object is as long as you
fix for yourself what a pov unit corresponds to in the scene. OK, fair
enough. In most of my scenes I have a clear idea about this. However, in
a test scene like this I just meddle around without clear notion about
true sizes. With sslt I should thus start with determining that beforehand.
Thanks! Much cleared now. I supposedly did not read the docs well enough
in the first place it seems.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Revisited the scene; set mm_to_unit to 10; scaled the tuit to be 3cm
across. Rendered with and without sslt.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'round tuit.png' (430 KB)
Preview of image 'round tuit.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
