hello,

i've been playing with pov now for almost 6 months, and for that
time i've been caught up in writing equations for humanoid motion,
and have learned precious little about pov itself and even less
about moray and spatch.

well, the motion equations are written, and i have a system set up
that i can at least use, and i'm ready to banish my stick figure
composed of cylinders and spheres for a little more life-like
figure.

what would you suggest that i use to construct the various body
parts with?  meshes?  i get the feeling that moray or spatch might
be handy for constructing them.  i've gone thru most of the moray
tutorial, but i can't say that any particular process has jumped out
at me and said, "use this to model a face."

thanks, miker

Post a reply to this message

Can't help you with the body-model, but can we have the human-motion
formulas?

ZK

Post a reply to this message

Blobs?

Post a reply to this message

I just picked up some of my old notes for making a hand. I was looking
at bicubic patches, defining two for each segment ofthe fingers, but
that was 28 patches. It was all hand coded, apparently.

You can use blobs, but I'm not satisfied with that look, personally.
Meshes can be used but calculating the normals is a pain. (at least for
me)

With the modeling programs it should be a sinch, just as long as you
keep the right scale, you'll be fine.

Joshua
eng### [at] spiritonecom

MR wrote:

> hello,
>
> i've been playing with pov now for almost 6 months, and for that
> time i've been caught up in writing equations for humanoid motion,
> and have learned precious little about pov itself and even less
> about moray and spatch.
>
> well, the motion equations are written, and i have a system set up
> that i can at least use, and i'm ready to banish my stick figure
> composed of cylinders and spheres for a little more life-like
> figure.
>
> what would you suggest that i use to construct the various body
> parts with?  meshes?  i get the feeling that moray or spatch might
> be handy for constructing them.  i've gone thru most of the moray
> tutorial, but i can't say that any particular process has jumped out
> at me and said, "use this to model a face."
>
> thanks, miker

Post a reply to this message

>You can use blobs, but I'm not satisfied with that look, personally.<

A simple question(or perhaps not...), why?

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:13:41 -0500, "MR" <a### [at] bnet> wrote:

>hello,
>
>i've been playing with pov now for almost 6 months, and for that
>time i've been caught up in writing equations for humanoid motion,
>and have learned precious little about pov itself and even less
>about moray and spatch.
>
>well, the motion equations are written, and i have a system set up
>that i can at least use, and i'm ready to banish my stick figure
>composed of cylinders and spheres for a little more life-like
>figure.
>
>what would you suggest that i use to construct the various body
>parts with?  meshes?  i get the feeling that moray or spatch might
>be handy for constructing them.  i've gone thru most of the moray
>tutorial, but i can't say that any particular process has jumped out
>at me and said, "use this to model a face."
>
I'd suggest (going by the images produced) taking a look at the
blob-man include file...

Failing that, possibly borrowing some 3D meshes from around the net?
(3D Cafe and the like).

There's at least 1 tutorial on making human heads with sPatch, though
I can't offhand think where it is :(

The biggest problem with using meshes would probaly be the joints -
problems that blobman almost certainly doesn't suffer from.


Cheers,

Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail

Post a reply to this message

'blob' would be a good and bad choice both. The Blobman macro include by
Peter H. and Govert Z. is a good example, can't think of a bad example;
unless you could call this same one that. Sorry, just making a point
here. The down side to them is the interactions between component parts.
This said, the parts of a moveable mesh wouldn't be perfect either I'm
guessing since the joints could be a tricky thing to get right enough.
For simplicity, sPatch might be the way to go, but then Moray is the
thing with the IK (inverse kinematics) for doing animation. Really a
tough call to make since you already have some sort of motion capable
scripting already done.

Bob

MR wrote:
> 
> hello,
> 
> i've been playing with pov now for almost 6 months, and for that
> time i've been caught up in writing equations for humanoid motion,
> and have learned precious little about pov itself and even less
> about moray and spatch.
> 
> well, the motion equations are written, and i have a system set up
> that i can at least use, and i'm ready to banish my stick figure
> composed of cylinders and spheres for a little more life-like
> figure.
> 
> what would you suggest that i use to construct the various body
> parts with?  meshes?  i get the feeling that moray or spatch might
> be handy for constructing them.  i've gone thru most of the moray
> tutorial, but i can't say that any particular process has jumped out
> at me and said, "use this to model a face."
> 
> thanks, miker

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message

I have a macro somewhere that places objects between two points, like beads
on a string. As the distance between each joint remains constant, couldn't
you use this method? You could build each limb from many spheres of various
sizes, and you'd only need to animate the joint movement in 3d space. You
could actually simulate muscle flexing also by affecting the scale of
individual components. It'd be difficult to do certainly, but better perhaps
than blobs or meshes.
I had intended to do this myself, using rotating orbiting blob-shapes, but
couldn't find the movement data for the joints. Motion capture data was what
I was looking for, but had no joy.

Just thought, if you created each limb seperately, then maybe you could
cylindrically map a bump_map on each one to simulate muscle tone.

------
Andy

Post a reply to this message

There is a macro in my macro collection which does eactly that.

Post a reply to this message

hello,

i'd be glad to post them.  please give me another month or so to
clean things up a bit and write a decent tutorial for it.  actually, i
still need to add  hand motion, too, but that hasn't kept me from
making him dance around.

thanks, miker


Zeger Knaepen <zeg### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:37976581@news.povray.org...
> Can't help you with the body-model, but can we have the human-motion
> formulas?
>
> ZK
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

hi chris,

i fear blobs, chris.  although i have seen the tutorial for making
a hand in the pov docs, it appears... intuitive to me, and i have
about as much intuition as a rock.

thanks, miker

Chris Huff <Chr### [at] compuservecom> wrote in message
news:3797689A.3059A2EB@compuserve.com...
> Blobs?
>

Post a reply to this message

hi cliff,

ok, i'll look at blobman.  i've got the zip and i thought i might
use him but i just figured that he was created with some third
party software that would make the include file unreadable to
normal humans.

thanks, miker


Cliff Bowman <c.b### [at] cwcomduffcom> wrote in message
news:379772ee.16572392@news.povray.org...
> On Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:13:41 -0500, "MR" <a### [at] bnet> wrote:
>
> >hello,
> >
> >i've been playing with pov now for almost 6 months, and for that
> >time i've been caught up in writing equations for humanoid motion,
> >and have learned precious little about pov itself and even less
> >about moray and spatch.
> >
> >well, the motion equations are written, and i have a system set up
> >that i can at least use, and i'm ready to banish my stick figure
> >composed of cylinders and spheres for a little more life-like
> >figure.
> >
> >what would you suggest that i use to construct the various body
> >parts with?  meshes?  i get the feeling that moray or spatch might
> >be handy for constructing them.  i've gone thru most of the moray
> >tutorial, but i can't say that any particular process has jumped out
> >at me and said, "use this to model a face."
> >
> I'd suggest (going by the images produced) taking a look at the
> blob-man include file...
>
> Failing that, possibly borrowing some 3D meshes from around the net?
> (3D Cafe and the like).
>
> There's at least 1 tutorial on making human heads with sPatch, though
> I can't offhand think where it is :(
>
> The biggest problem with using meshes would probaly be the joints -
> problems that blobman almost certainly doesn't suffer from.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff Bowman
> Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
> PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail

Post a reply to this message

hey andrew,

thanks for the comments.  remember emailing me all those
cool media files a while back?

most of the motion equations were totally uninspiring.  80%
of it is nothing but motion using spherical coordinates.  for
example, the shoulder to the elbow, and then again... the
elbow to the wrist (i haven't done the hands yet).  the length
is fixed, and i just feed a macro two angle increments, one
coming down off the vertical axis, and the other out from the
x axis.

but when i wanted to specify the hip, ankle, and toe point and
then have the code calculate where the knee would be (is this
inverse kinematics?), it just about killed me.  ha ha.  took me
a month to come back up to speed enough on the math to
solve that one.

and right now... the body parts are static.  they will not flex
with motion.

thanks, miker




Andrew Cocker <and### [at] acockerfreeservecouk> wrote in message
news:3797d468@news.povray.org...
> I have a macro somewhere that places objects between two points, like
beads
> on a string. As the distance between each joint remains constant, couldn't
> you use this method? You could build each limb from many spheres of
various
> sizes, and you'd only need to animate the joint movement in 3d space. You
> could actually simulate muscle flexing also by affecting the scale of
> individual components. It'd be difficult to do certainly, but better
perhaps
> than blobs or meshes.
> I had intended to do this myself, using rotating orbiting blob-shapes, but
> couldn't find the movement data for the joints. Motion capture data was
what
> I was looking for, but had no joy.
>
> Just thought, if you created each limb seperately, then maybe you could
> cylindrically map a bump_map on each one to simulate muscle tone.
>
> ------
> Andy
>
>

Post a reply to this message

I find blobs hard to control... I remember seeing some space ships months
ago that were done in blobs and looked good... but blobs, for me, always
look out of place... perhaps I took too many life drawing courses or
somthing, but computer generated people need to be accurate or cartoonish,
and I haven't seen blobs go far enough in either direction..

This is of course, purely my opinion. I am impressed with the blob man
include file in that it can pose complex objects, but I'm not satisfied
with the way it looks.

Joshua
eng### [at] spiritonecom

Chris Huff wrote:

> >You can use blobs, but I'm not satisfied with that look, personally.<
>
> A simple question(or perhaps not...), why?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 01:55:10 +0100, "Andrew Cocker"
<and### [at] acockerfreeservecouk> wrote:

>I have a macro somewhere that places objects between two points, like beads
>on a string. As the distance between each joint remains constant, couldn't
>you use this method? You could build each limb from many spheres of various
>sizes, and you'd only need to animate the joint movement in 3d space. You
>could actually simulate muscle flexing also by affecting the scale of
>individual components. It'd be difficult to do certainly, but better perhaps
>than blobs or meshes.
>I had intended to do this myself, using rotating orbiting blob-shapes, but
>couldn't find the movement data for the joints. Motion capture data was what
>I was looking for, but had no joy.
>
I've found a few sites with motion data on them in what I'm told is a
comparatively "standard format" - BVH files. I've not found (or looked
for) the file specification but it's probably "out there" if you know
that BVH is another word to use when doing searches. I was actually
looking for other stuff when I found it so I don't have any URL's to
hand - but give me a yell if this doesn't help and I'll see if I can
find some again.


Cheers,

Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail

Post a reply to this message

Cliff Bowman <c.b### [at] cwcomduffcom> wrote in message
news:37988b18.60314359@news.povray.org...

> I've found a few sites with motion data on them in what I'm told is a
> comparatively "standard format" - BVH files. I've not found (or looked
> for) the file specification but it's probably "out there" if you know
> that BVH is another word to use when doing searches. I was actually
> looking for other stuff when I found it so I don't have any URL's to
> hand - but give me a yell if this doesn't help and I'll see if I can
> find some again.

Thanks Cliff, but it's not a priority at the mo'. But let me ask you
something regarding Dr Who. What was the title of the episode (s) that
featured the Krynoids (not sure of the spelling), the plant-like tentacled
things? I remember it scared me more than any other episode. It was a Tom
Baker Dr. Who ( the best ).

Cheers,

Andy

Post a reply to this message

I second the request.
Mr. Art

Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> 
> Can't help you with the body-model, but can we have the human-motion
> formulas?
> 
> ZK

-- 
Advanced means constantly wondering where reality gets its processing
power.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 19:29:59 +0100, "Andrew Cocker"
<and### [at] acockerfreeservecouk> wrote:

>
[snip Motion-Capture/BVH]
>
>Thanks Cliff, but it's not a priority at the mo'. But let me ask you
>something regarding Dr Who. What was the title of the episode (s) that
>featured the Krynoids (not sure of the spelling), the plant-like tentacled
>things? I remember it scared me more than any other episode. It was a Tom
>Baker Dr. Who ( the best ).
>
It's "The Seeds of Doom" - and yes, at the time I found it terrifying.
Thinking back I can't help but think that the later stages could be
done better now with POV (you know the bits I mean - ginormous plant
attacks huge "house") as long as POv was given a render farm the size
of London to work with <eg>.
Ooo-err. I think I've just become the group's token Dr Who geek.


Eeek!


Cheers,

Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail

Post a reply to this message

Then prepare to feel insulted:
What's this Dr. Who, anyway? A TV show? I think I saw a computer game on that
theme once and never quite figured out what the hell was going on.
Have I missed something good? :P

Margus

Cliff Bowman wrote:
> 
> Ooo-err. I think I've just become the group's token Dr Who geek.
> 
> Eeek!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Cliff Bowman
> Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
> PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail

Post a reply to this message

Hey, Margus, you've not lived until you watch a year of Dr. Who shows. I
was always tuning in to see the next episode as the Tardis (time machine
disguised as a English phone booth) went galavanting about the universe
and landing in more trouble. It was quite some time before I knew of the
other Dr. Who's (the main character actor changed over time) as I
recall. That was back in the early 80's when I saw the TV show on a
Public Broadcasting Station in Seattle. For those not in the know about
it the series was beyond sci-fi lameness I thought, so much so it was
intriguing. Simply great to sit and watch and let the mind rest. That's
my opinion of it anyway.


Margus Ramst wrote:
> 
> Then prepare to feel insulted:
> What's this Dr. Who, anyway? A TV show? I think I saw a computer game on that
> theme once and never quite figured out what the hell was going on.
> Have I missed something good? :P
> 
> Margus
> 
> Cliff Bowman wrote:
> >
> > Ooo-err. I think I've just become the group's token Dr Who geek.
> >
> > Eeek!
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Cliff Bowman
> > Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
> > PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 03:02:45 +0300, Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peakeduee>
wrote:

>Then prepare to feel insulted:
>What's this Dr. Who, anyway? A TV show? I think I saw a computer game on that
>theme once and never quite figured out what the hell was going on.
>Have I missed something good? :P
>
Not with the computer games you haven't!

But to put it into comparative perspective, the original Star Trek
series lasted 3 seasons before it ended (followed by a few years of
virtually nothing unless you count the - awful - cartoon series).
Doctor Who lasted over 20 seasons before it's first hiatus (of about
18 months IIRC) and a total of about 26 seasons (I forget) but has
been pretty much "on hold" for about the last 10 years.

Star Trek was revitalised by a series of movies which resulted in a
resumption of interest and, eventually, several new series's each of
which fared better than TOS (despite the fact that the first movie
wasn't generally raved about). The BBC seem to be currently
considering a second Dr Who movie after the 1995 TV Movie acheived
insufficient viewing figures in the states (did well over here
though).

As a series Dr Who varied wildly. The series was based around good,
interesting scripts. Sometimes the direction was good, the acting, the
music. the sets, the 'effects' etc. but equally there are fine
examples of men in rubber suits and poor acting/lighting/sets if you
look for them (and, sadly, not ALL the scripts were up to scratch
either). As a whole the percentage of times they got it "right" as
opposed to "wrong" (see rubber suits, acting etc.) was amazingly high
- resulting in a niche fandom which is still quite vocal (worldwide)
ten years after the series basically ended.

Erm... looking for something on topic. Oh yeah. Some of the online
fandom even tinker around with POV to re-create some of the aspects of
the show. They might even re-create lost episodes and new fan stories
if they ever get their seats in gear :)


Cheers,

Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 20:38:06 -0500, Bob Hughes <inv### [at] aolcom>
wrote:

>Hey, Margus, you've not lived until you watch a year of Dr. Who shows. I
>was always tuning in to see the next episode as the Tardis (time machine
>disguised as a English phone booth) went galavanting about the universe
>and landing in more trouble. It was quite some time before I knew of the
>other Dr. Who's (the main character actor changed over time) as I
>recall. That was back in the early 80's when I saw the TV show on a
>Public Broadcasting Station in Seattle. For those not in the know about
>it the series was beyond sci-fi lameness I thought, so much so it was
>intriguing. Simply great to sit and watch and let the mind rest. That's
>my opinion of it anyway.
>
>
Thanks Bob - nice to hear an opinion from neither side of fanaticism
(Who usually gets praised too far or slagged too far). I'm guessing
the doctor you saw was Tom Baker - all teeth and curls with a scarf
that'd defy 3D modelling. Sadly some of the earlier stories have been
lost (and/or destroyed) by the BBC but we live in hope... sometimes
"lost" stories have been found...

Anyone checked their basements or lofts lately?


Cheers,

Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail

Post a reply to this message

Cliff Bowman wrote:

> Erm... looking for something on topic. Oh yeah. Some of the online
> fandom even tinker around with POV to re-create some of the aspects of
> the show. They might even re-create lost episodes and new fan stories
> if they ever get their seats in gear :)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Cliff Bowman
> Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
> PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail

What was the basic premise of the show ? Star Trek was to explore new worlds,
new civilazations, and to boldly go where no man had gone before.

-- 
Ken Tyler
  
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/links.htm

Post a reply to this message

Yes, Tom Baker was (is?) the guy who seemed to fit the entire theme so
well or so I thought. I saw many a show though having a couple other
guys instead, one short and dark-haired (I always thought of Moe from
the 3 Stooges when I saw him) and a tall thin older gentleman with blond
hair. Can't recall any others if there were any. I'd say I saw a total
of three seasons worth altogether I guess. I didn't know it was as long
running a program as you had said.
Anywho (ha), that's terrible if there are "missing" episodes (my
fanatical side showing through). Wouldn't doubt there are video taped
ones out there, but if it went as far back as all that, not so likely.
And on topic again myself, the phone booth Tardis would be great to
raytrace. Or maybe K-9. But really on topic would be a Dr. Who <g>


Cliff Bowman wrote:
> 
> Thanks Bob - nice to hear an opinion from neither side of fanaticism
> (Who usually gets praised too far or slagged too far). I'm guessing
> the doctor you saw was Tom Baker - all teeth and curls with a scarf
> that'd defy 3D modelling. Sadly some of the earlier stories have been
> lost (and/or destroyed) by the BBC but we live in hope... sometimes
> "lost" stories have been found...
> 
> Anyone checked their basements or lofts lately?
>

Post a reply to this message

'T was on Sun, 25 Jul 1999 10:11:25 -0700,
that Ken said:
> What was the basic premise of the show ? Star Trek was to explore new worlds,
> new civilazations, and to boldly go where no man had gone before.

It's been a *long* time since I saw an episode (we're talking over 14 
years here), but Dr. Who was a Time Lord, and was generally fixing stuff 
in past, present and future...

Phoenix

-- 
eag### [at] telekabelnl                       http://users.telekabel.nl/eagle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember the immortal words of Socrates:  "I drank *what*?"

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
>What was the basic premise of the show ? Star Trek was to explore 
>new worlds, new civilazations, and to boldly go where no man had 
>gone before.

Wow, something I can actually answer. This opportunity might 
never present itself again <vbg>. Well, let's see, as I recall,
the first Doctor, member of an race calling themselves the Time 
Lords wanted his granddaughter to receive her preliminary 
education on Earth (the reason was never clear to me, but in 
later episodes it was hinted the Doctor had part Terran ancestry).
The Time Lords of course absolutely forbade it, and the Doctor 
wasn't much of one to give a damn what they did or didn't allow 
so he er, "borrowed" a TARDIS and took her to an old point in 
Earth history (which just happened to be the"modern" era when the 
story began, of course). Now a TARDIS, being the apex of Time 
Lord technology it presumably wasn't easy to swipe one, and the 
Doctor got around this by stealing an antiquated bucket of junk 
(but don't tell HIM that! He's fond of the "old girl") that could 
just about *barely* navigate timespace correctly.  For the first 
several seasons, it was pretty much about getting the balky TARDIS 
to take them where/when they wanted to be, but eventually the 
Doctor (who changed companions every couple seasons or so) turned 
into more or less a wandering exile/adventurer, facing off against 
numerous minor, and a couple major arch-enemies (The Master, 
the Daleks, etc). 

Let's see. On topic... on topic... er, Oh yes, and the business 
about several different Doctors was attributable to the fact that 
Time Lords (what was it? up to 12 times?) could "regenerate" when 
fatally injured. In essence, their own bodies (through a mechanism 
that was never fully explained) invoked a major overhaul of their 
DNA physically transforming them while repairing the damage. (which
was a handy plot device that meant a new actor could be selected to 
carry on the role<g>)...and, er... body parts being regenerated 
would be challenging to raytrace? Oh well, I tried.


Charles
-- 
http://www.enter.net/~cfusner
"...Then darkness took me, and I strayed out of thought and time,
 and I wandered far on roads that I will not tell..." 
                              -The Two Towers, JRR Tolkien

Post a reply to this message

I used to love that show as a kid, but I barely remember it now.
I just remember--I guess it was Tom Baker--The Doctor, K9 and
the opening credits with the tunnel.
You had to catch it on PBS, I think they still run some reruns.
Hmm? I'll have to keep an eye open...

>As a series Dr Who varied wildly. The series was based around good,
>interesting scripts. Sometimes the direction was good, the acting, the
>music.

I never really did figure out what the show was about, maybe that's 
why I kept watching.

>The BBC seem to be currently
>considering a second Dr Who movie after the 1995 TV Movie acheived
>insufficient viewing figures in the states (did well over here
>though). 

I think if the BBC wants to get Americans into Doctor Who They'll have
to get someone like John Malkovich to play the Doctor.
-- 
...coffee?...yes please! extra sugar,extra cream...Thank you.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 12:24:02 -0500, Bob Hughes <inv### [at] aolcom>
wrote:

>Yes, Tom Baker was (is?) the guy who seemed to fit the entire theme so
>well or so I thought. I saw many a show though having a couple other
>guys instead, one short and dark-haired (I always thought of Moe from
>the 3 Stooges when I saw him)

That's be Pat Troughton - who you may recall better as a preist in one
of the Omen films.

> and a tall thin older gentleman with blond
>hair.

Blonde.. almost certainly Peter Davison (who took up the role after
Tom Baker). No idea what of his has been exported - All Creatures
Grunt and Smell?

> Can't recall any others if there were any. I'd say I saw a total
>of three seasons worth altogether I guess. I didn't know it was as long
>running a program as you had said.

There were 7 main "incarnations" on TV, with Peter Cushing doubling up
as the first Doctor for 2 fairly dire movies.

>Anywho (ha), that's terrible if there are "missing" episodes (my
>fanatical side showing through). Wouldn't doubt there are video taped
>ones out there, but if it went as far back as all that, not so likely.

You'd be surprised - the discovery of some episodes has to lead to
revised opinion of how quickly home recording started "taking off".
Only last year an additional episode was found (although not a home
recording) - it seems every time we give up and think "Oh, there'll
always be 110 episodes missing" along comes another and makes it 109
(the current status, IIRC)

>And on topic again myself, the phone booth Tardis would be great to
>raytrace. Or maybe K-9. But really on topic would be a Dr. Who <g>
>

Well, I've done a TARDIS (although Superpatch hates it so I really
ought to find my design flaw) and I'm working on Doctors... one of my
main interests in Poser, in fact :)

Of course - if anyone feels like showing me by example how to do
characters/objects from Doctor Who *please* don't let me stop you!


Cheers,

Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 15:18:54 -0400, Charles <cfu### [at] enternet> wrote:

>Ken wrote:
>>What was the basic premise of the show ? Star Trek was to explore 
>>new worlds, new civilazations, and to boldly go where no man had 
>>gone before.
>
>Wow, something I can actually answer. This opportunity might 
>never present itself again <vbg>. Well, let's see, as I recall,


AS YOU RECALL? Considering how close to spot-on that was, even
considering the books and TV movie released after the show... how many
days is it since you watched an episode?

Feeling even more at home here than Ken et al have made me feel by
helping me out with my little projects,


Cheers,

Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 10:11:25 -0700, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:

>
>
>Cliff Bowman wrote:
>
>> Erm... looking for something on topic. Oh yeah. Some of the online
>> fandom even tinker around with POV to re-create some of the aspects of
>> the show. They might even re-create lost episodes and new fan stories
>> if they ever get their seats in gear :)
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Cliff Bowman
>> Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
>> PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail
>
>What was the basic premise of the show ? Star Trek was to explore new worlds,
>new civilazations, and to boldly go where no man had gone before.
>
I'll try to answer as succinctly (although this will be someaht short
of comprehensive). Overall the show was about an ancient humanoid with
12 "regenrations" (lives, in effect) who was mostly a well-intentioned
hobo travelling through time and space. A LOT of stuff from Who shows
up in other SF/Fantasy shows, for a couple of reasons. One is that Who
"borrowed" from earlier literature/films much as newer shows do - and
one is that Who is a show that has been repeatedly "borrowed" from.

BTW, don't ask a Who fan where the Borg come from. If you do and they
mention "Cybermen" nod sagely and back off slowly <eg>


Cheers,

Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 23:55:10 -0400, Phil Clute <pcl### [at] tiacnet>
wrote:

>
>I used to love that show as a kid, but I barely remember it now.
>I just remember--I guess it was Tom Baker--The Doctor, K9 and
>the opening credits with the tunnel.
>You had to catch it on PBS, I think they still run some reruns.
>Hmm? I'll have to keep an eye open...
>
>>As a series Dr Who varied wildly. The series was based around good,
>>interesting scripts. Sometimes the direction was good, the acting, the
>>music.
>
>I never really did figure out what the show was about, maybe that's 
>why I kept watching.

Even now, X years worth of books later (the books carrying off where
the TV series ended) and despite numerous "revelations" we still don't
actually know a great deal about The Doctor, or his motivations beyond
"being a reluctant hero" (or sometimes not so reluctant).

>>The BBC seem to be currently
>>considering a second Dr Who movie after the 1995 TV Movie acheived
>>insufficient viewing figures in the states (did well over here
>>though). 
>
>I think if the BBC wants to get Americans into Doctor Who They'll have
>to get someone like John Malkovich to play the Doctor.
>-- 
I don't think the BBC want to appeal to Americans so much as they want
American money. Last I heard however, American fandom was still going
despite 10 years of no show. There's even about 10,000 of them buy the
books each month...

Figures subject to wild inaccuracies (numbers not being my forte - but
should be about right).

Now if we could get half of them working in POV...


Cheers,

Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail

Post a reply to this message