 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many try to
model an appearance of reality. For instance, when you need a crowd of trees
in the background, are you more likely to make a bunch of trees, or will you
put up an image map of some trees on a box? When trying to make a texture,
do you make it in detail every time, or do you let it slide if it is too far
back for all the normals to be seen?
Since I always tend towards animation, I try to make things real. It
means that some projects just don't get done. But if I ever want to do a
walk through of one of my scenes, nothing ends up looking bad from the other
side.
Just curious, no intent to disparage either method or assume that people
should use one exclusively of another. I just get the feeling that people
who aren't as hung up on reality are the ones that send us such good scenes
more often than others.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cfl rrcom> wrote in message
news:3bc84ecc@news.povray.org...
>
> Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many try
to
> model an appearance of reality. For instance, when you need a crowd of
trees
> in the background, are you more likely to make a bunch of trees, or will
you
> put up an image map of some trees on a box? When trying to make a texture,
> do you make it in detail every time, or do you let it slide if it is too
far
> back for all the normals to be seen?
Having thought about this particular thing many times before I think I might
know my answer by now.
I put things together mostly by building from scratch, only cobbling a scene
together. However, I've tried a few things which I wanted to be based on
reality as perceived or as photographed or even as measured. So what
happens is that I create from that primary habit of piecing stuff together
but if the subject is realism, or rather reality, then I use sources to go
by.
> Since I always tend towards animation, I try to make things real. It
> means that some projects just don't get done. But if I ever want to do a
> walk through of one of my scenes, nothing ends up looking bad from the
other
> side.
Yes, and that's why stage-propping a scene is faster, easier and yet can be
too lacking.
> Just curious, no intent to disparage either method or assume that
people
> should use one exclusively of another. I just get the feeling that people
> who aren't as hung up on reality are the ones that send us such good
scenes
> more often than others.
The old saying, art for arts sake, but if it doesn't match up with a
preconceived idea it is destined to failure. Actually that could be
debatable.
Bob H.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
> Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many try to
> model an appearance of reality. For instance, when you need a crowd of trees
> in the background, are you more likely to make a bunch of trees, or will you
> put up an image map of some trees on a box? When trying to make a texture,
> do you make it in detail every time, or do you let it slide if it is too far
> back for all the normals to be seen?
A bit of both. I will usually start by trying to model things as they
should be (almost to the point of thinking about intermolecular bonds)
but after hours of frustration, will reluctantly revert to faking it.
But still can't come to terms with the concept of using object libraries
or scanned images, unless told to. I have so many failed reinvented
wheels lying around my hard disk, it's not even funny.
> Since I always tend towards animation, I try to make things real. It
> means that some projects just don't get done. But if I ever want to do a
> walk through of one of my scenes, nothing ends up looking bad from the other
> side.
Same here. I have spent numerous hours finagling over details that go
on the back of an object that would appear facing the camera, just in
case I wanted to reuse it at another angle or making sure that moveable
parts are.
> Just curious, no intent to disparage either method or assume that people
> should use one exclusively of another. I just get the feeling that people
> who aren't as hung up on reality are the ones that send us such good scenes
> more often than others.
>
Agreed. This is the main reason I've only ever submitted one IRTC entry.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* videotron.ca */}camera{location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a orthographic}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mostly I just model stuff. I don't worry about making a scene.
Maybe that is why I don't ever post pics here.
Bill DeWitt wrote:
> Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many try to
> model an appearance of reality. For instance, when you need a crowd of trees
> in the background, are you more likely to make a bunch of trees, or will you
> put up an image map of some trees on a box? When trying to make a texture,
> do you make it in detail every time, or do you let it slide if it is too far
> back for all the normals to be seen?
>
> Since I always tend towards animation, I try to make things real. It
> means that some projects just don't get done. But if I ever want to do a
> walk through of one of my scenes, nothing ends up looking bad from the other
> side.
>
> Just curious, no intent to disparage either method or assume that people
> should use one exclusively of another. I just get the feeling that people
> who aren't as hung up on reality are the ones that send us such good scenes
> more often than others.
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I tend to experiment with reality in both modelling and texturing, at the
expense of getting any serious project finished of course.
-tgq
"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3bc84ecc@news.povray.org...
>
> Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many try
to
> model an appearance of reality. For instance, when you need a crowd of
trees
> in the background, are you more likely to make a bunch of trees, or will
you
> put up an image map of some trees on a box? When trying to make a texture,
> do you make it in detail every time, or do you let it slide if it is too
far
> back for all the normals to be seen?
>
> Since I always tend towards animation, I try to make things real. It
> means that some projects just don't get done. But if I ever want to do a
> walk through of one of my scenes, nothing ends up looking bad from the
other
> side.
>
> Just curious, no intent to disparage either method or assume that
people
> should use one exclusively of another. I just get the feeling that people
> who aren't as hung up on reality are the ones that send us such good
scenes
> more often than others.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many
> try to model an appearance of reality. For instance, when you need a
> crowd of trees in the background, are you more likely to make a bunch
> of trees, or will you put up an image map of some trees on a box?
It depends on the level of detail required.
> When trying to make a texture, do you make it in detail every time, or
> do you let it slide if it is too far back for all the normals to be
> seen?
My textures are rarely complicated, so I can afford to make them work
at all scales.
Regards,
John
--
ICQ: 46085459
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Most of the time I just model everything that's going to be in the scene,
but if there isn't going to be anything of much interest beyond a certain
point I just put everything inside a reflective sphere.
--
camera{location<0,0.25,-2> look_at 0.5*y} #declare
T=texture{pigment{crackle scale 0.5 rotate 90 turbulence 0.75 color_map{[0
rgb 1][0.05 rgb 1][0.1 rgb<1,0.25,1>][0.25 rgbf 1][1 rgbf 1]}}
finish{ambient 1}} #declare c=difference{torus{0.5,0.1
rotate -90*x}box{<0.7,0,0.2>,<-0.7,-0.7,-0.2>}} merge{object{c
translate<0.5,0.5,0>} object{c translate<-0.5,0.5,0>}
cylinder{<1,0.5,0>,<1,0,0>,0.1} cylinder{<-1,0.5,0>,<-1,0,0>,0.1}
cylinder{0.5*y,0,0.1} texture{T}}
//Mahalis
--
"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3bc84ecc@news.povray.org...
>
> Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many try
to
> model an appearance of reality. For instance, when you need a crowd of
trees
> in the background, are you more likely to make a bunch of trees, or will
you
> put up an image map of some trees on a box? When trying to make a texture,
> do you make it in detail every time, or do you let it slide if it is too
far
> back for all the normals to be seen?
>
> Since I always tend towards animation, I try to make things real. It
> means that some projects just don't get done. But if I ever want to do a
> walk through of one of my scenes, nothing ends up looking bad from the
other
> side.
>
> Just curious, no intent to disparage either method or assume that
people
> should use one exclusively of another. I just get the feeling that people
> who aren't as hung up on reality are the ones that send us such good
scenes
> more often than others.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
NO
- It never is.
Tor Olav
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt escribió:
>
> Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many try to
> model an appearance of reality.
I always try to get the appearance of reality by any mean, don't
matter if it is a phisically correct one or not. But this does not means
I model with detail all objects in the scene. In fact, most of my scenes
can't be rendered bigger because I used tricks that only work with
limited resolutions. I only have detailed objects at distance when I
reuse an old model, wich was on the foreground on a previous scene.
> Just curious, no intent to disparage either method or assume that people
> should use one exclusively of another. I just get the feeling that people
> who aren't as hung up on reality are the ones that send us such good scenes
> more often than others.
Hmmm... not necesarily, but "usually" true. That's because an excess
of scruples can lead to never finish something. An old problem of art,
and many other human activities.
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Although most of my work so far has been more abstract (that is, things that
you won't find in real life), I make it in such a way that if it *did*
appear in real life, the mathematics behind it all would be identical. I
don't use hacks to make things look realistic if the workings behind them
are unrealistic, with a few exceptions. For example, I try to avoid
shadowless lights, because you don't find shadowless lights in the real
world. Stuff like that.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
[ http://www.slimeland.com/images/ ]
"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3bc84ecc@news.povray.org...
>
> Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many try
to
> model an appearance of reality. For instance, when you need a crowd of
trees
> in the background, are you more likely to make a bunch of trees, or will
you
> put up an image map of some trees on a box? When trying to make a texture,
> do you make it in detail every time, or do you let it slide if it is too
far
> back for all the normals to be seen?
>
> Since I always tend towards animation, I try to make things real. It
> means that some projects just don't get done. But if I ever want to do a
> walk through of one of my scenes, nothing ends up looking bad from the
other
> side.
>
> Just curious, no intent to disparage either method or assume that
people
> should use one exclusively of another. I just get the feeling that people
> who aren't as hung up on reality are the ones that send us such good
scenes
> more often than others.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Although I have been poving this (in an off-and-off-and-off-and-on
manner...) since v2.2, I am obviously not skilled enough to get
photo-quality scenes rendered. Not that I would like to. Getting the perfect
kitchen rendered is not one if my goals, but having a perfectly believable
non-exixting object sitting on top of a table or, better yet, a tiled floor
is what I want. So I guess I do shoot for realism. One day I'll get it, I'm
sure.
Ruy
"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> escreveu na mensagem
news:3bc84ecc@news.povray.org...
>
> Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many try
to
> model an appearance of reality. For instance, when you need a crowd of
trees
> in the background, are you more likely to make a bunch of trees, or will
you
> put up an image map of some trees on a box? When trying to make a texture,
> do you make it in detail every time, or do you let it slide if it is too
far
> back for all the normals to be seen?
>
> Since I always tend towards animation, I try to make things real. It
> means that some projects just don't get done. But if I ever want to do a
> walk through of one of my scenes, nothing ends up looking bad from the
other
> side.
>
> Just curious, no intent to disparage either method or assume that
people
> should use one exclusively of another. I just get the feeling that people
> who aren't as hung up on reality are the ones that send us such good
scenes
> more often than others.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3bc889f6@news.povray.org> , "Ruy" <ruy### [at] hipernetcombr> wrote:
> Although I have been poving this (in an off-and-off-and-off-and-on
> manner...) since v2.2, I am obviously not skilled enough to get
> photo-quality scenes rendered. Not that I would like to. Getting the perfect
> kitchen rendered is not one if my goals, but having a perfectly believable
> non-exixting object sitting on top of a table or, better yet, a tiled floor
> is what I want. So I guess I do shoot for realism. One day I'll get it, I'm
> sure.
Don't worry. I never managed to get anything matching those great POV
artists either. And I have been using POV for years, just never the scene
description langauge... ;-)
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich
e-mail: mac### [at] povrayorg
I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ruy" <ruy### [at] hipernetcombr> wrote in message
news:3bc889f6@news.povray.org...
> Although I have been poving this (in an off-and-off-and-off-and-on
> manner...) since v2.2, I am obviously not skilled enough to get
> photo-quality scenes rendered. Not that I would like to. Getting the
perfect
> kitchen rendered is not one if my goals, but having a perfectly believable
> non-exixting object sitting on top of a table or, better yet, a tiled
floor
> is what I want. So I guess I do shoot for realism. One day I'll get it,
I'm
> sure.
Well, I wasn't talking about photo-realism. For instance, I have a
continuing project of modeling a microscope. There are some internal gears
that I had to dismantle the microscope to find. But I found them and modeled
them even though it will take a cutaway view to ever see them. Probably
slows down the rendering a lot and certainly slowed down the project.
But I can't see modeling something and leaving out the working parts.
Probably a psychosis of some sort.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I model small objects from scratch, based on precise measurements from real
life. Because big objects in real life are made up of small objects. I have
a library of small but realistic looking things, that I made myself. Those I
can add to a bigger scene later on. Even on a distance, details should give
a better look. I model the back side of things too, but I try to avoid fully
invisible things, such as internal gear like you mention.
You rarely see me posting images here, first of all because I work a long
time with them, and don't finish anything so often... Secondly because I
recently lost most of my objects in a harddisk crash, so please backup your
things, folks.
Hugo
> Well, I wasn't talking about photo-realism. For instance, I have a
> continuing project of modeling a microscope. There are some internal gears
> that I had to dismantle the microscope to find. But I found them and
modeled
> them even though it will take a cutaway view to ever see them. Probably
> slows down the rendering a lot and certainly slowed down the project.
>
> But I can't see modeling something and leaving out the working parts.
> Probably a psychosis of some sort.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> escreveu na mensagem
news:3bc8a07e$1@news.povray.org...
> Well, I wasn't talking about photo-realism. For instance, I have a
> continuing project of modeling a microscope. There are some internal gears
> that I had to dismantle the microscope to find. But I found them and
modeled
> them even though it will take a cutaway view to ever see them. Probably
> slows down the rendering a lot and certainly slowed down the project.
>
> But I can't see modeling something and leaving out the working parts.
> Probably a psychosis of some sort.
I see what you mean now, my blunder...
In answer to (what I think is) your real question, I model my scenes in a
way you can render them from any standpont and they would still make sense.
I don't use - to stay on your example - backdrop pictures and other
subterfuges made possible by povray, but not possible in real life.
Actually, I'd love to, but I am way to incompetent in the language to be
able to.Anyway, I'm not that uptight about it, though. Should you take a
cutaway at some of my models, you would fing flaws. My rule of thumb is: if
it will *never* be visible, don't model it; if there is the slightest
chance that someday it will be rendered in a way that it will be visible, go
ahead and do it.
Ruy
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is off the topic a bit, but you know what I'd like to see? A microscope
made in POV-Ray, using refraction, that actually works like a real
microscope if you put the camera up to the eyepiece. That'd be cool.
Useless, but cool.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
[ http://www.slimeland.com/images/ ]
"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3bc8a07e$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Ruy" <ruy### [at] hipernetcombr> wrote in message
> news:3bc889f6@news.povray.org...
> > Although I have been poving this (in an off-and-off-and-off-and-on
> > manner...) since v2.2, I am obviously not skilled enough to get
> > photo-quality scenes rendered. Not that I would like to. Getting the
> perfect
> > kitchen rendered is not one if my goals, but having a perfectly
believable
> > non-exixting object sitting on top of a table or, better yet, a tiled
> floor
> > is what I want. So I guess I do shoot for realism. One day I'll get it,
> I'm
> > sure.
>
> Well, I wasn't talking about photo-realism. For instance, I have a
> continuing project of modeling a microscope. There are some internal gears
> that I had to dismantle the microscope to find. But I found them and
modeled
> them even though it will take a cutaway view to ever see them. Probably
> slows down the rendering a lot and certainly slowed down the project.
>
> But I can't see modeling something and leaving out the working parts.
> Probably a psychosis of some sort.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just like to add that in schools, they learn not to model anything that
won't be visible or important in the scene / animation they are working at..
In Hollywood, they model what they are asked to model, sometimes one half of
an object and not the other, if it's not going to be used.. And they use
*any* tricks that work.. But it's a matter of purpose.. Art for joy, art as
learning curve, art for money.. I think it's good to try all 3 ways of
working..
Hugo
> Well, I wasn't talking about photo-realism. For instance, I have a
> continuing project of modeling a microscope. There are some internal gears
> that I had to dismantle the microscope to find. But I found them and
modeled
> them even though it will take a cutaway view to ever see them. Probably
> slows down the rendering a lot and certainly slowed down the project.
>
> But I can't see modeling something and leaving out the working parts.
> Probably a psychosis of some sort.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Art for money? That'll be the day... :-)
--
camera{location<0,0.25,-2> look_at 0.5*y} #declare
T=texture{pigment{crackle scale 0.5 rotate 90 turbulence 0.75 color_map{[0
rgb 1][0.05 rgb 1][0.1 rgb<1,0.25,1>][0.25 rgbf 1][1 rgbf 1]}}
finish{ambient 1}} #declare c=difference{torus{0.5,0.1
rotate -90*x}box{<0.7,0,0.2>,<-0.7,-0.7,-0.2>}} merge{object{c
translate<0.5,0.5,0>} object{c translate<-0.5,0.5,0>}
cylinder{<1,0.5,0>,<1,0,0>,0.1} cylinder{<-1,0.5,0>,<-1,0,0>,0.1}
cylinder{0.5*y,0,0.1} texture{T}}
//Mahalis
--
"Hugo" <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message
news:3bc96ddd$1@news.povray.org...
> Just like to add that in schools, they learn not to model anything that
> won't be visible or important in the scene / animation they are working
at..
> In Hollywood, they model what they are asked to model, sometimes one half
of
> an object and not the other, if it's not going to be used.. And they use
> *any* tricks that work.. But it's a matter of purpose.. Art for joy, art
as
> learning curve, art for money.. I think it's good to try all 3 ways of
> working..
>
> Hugo
>
>
> > Well, I wasn't talking about photo-realism. For instance, I have a
> > continuing project of modeling a microscope. There are some internal
gears
> > that I had to dismantle the microscope to find. But I found them and
> modeled
> > them even though it will take a cutaway view to ever see them. Probably
> > slows down the rendering a lot and certainly slowed down the project.
> >
> > But I can't see modeling something and leaving out the working
parts.
> > Probably a psychosis of some sort.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3bc8a07e$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Ruy" <ruy### [at] hipernetcombr> wrote in message
> news:3bc889f6@news.povray.org...
> > Although I have been poving this (in an off-and-off-and-off-and-on
> > manner...) since v2.2, I am obviously not skilled enough to get
> > photo-quality scenes rendered. Not that I would like to. Getting the
> perfect
> > kitchen rendered is not one if my goals, but having a perfectly believable
> > non-exixting object sitting on top of a table or, better yet, a tiled
> floor
> > is what I want. So I guess I do shoot for realism. One day I'll get it,
> I'm
> > sure.
>
> Well, I wasn't talking about photo-realism. For instance, I have a
> continuing project of modeling a microscope. There are some internal gears
> that I had to dismantle the microscope to find. But I found them and modeled
> them even though it will take a cutaway view to ever see them. Probably
> slows down the rendering a lot and certainly slowed down the project.
>
> But I can't see modeling something and leaving out the working parts.
> Probably a psychosis of some sort.
>
I was thinking of modelling the engine of my car as well, but considering the
render speed at the moment, I've been thinking of a height-field from a
photograph of an engine - very bad...
But I definitely still want to do the interior. I guess I want to make it seem
as real as possible and I get to know Pov better in the process.
- Nekar
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.282 / Virus Database: 150 - Release Date: 2001/09/25
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Slime" <noo### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3bc936b6$1@news.povray.org...
> This is off the topic a bit, but you know what I'd like to see? A
microscope
> made in POV-Ray, using refraction, that actually works like a real
> microscope if you put the camera up to the eyepiece.
When I get mine done, it will do this. You should be able to change the
magnification and focus too.
> That'd be cool.
> Useless, but cool.
Exactly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3bc84ecc@news.povray.org...
<snip>
The vast* majority of my scenes will only work from the set-up camera. I very
rarely model anything that isn't directly viewable. Even visible objects may be
distorted if viewed from other angles. For reflective surfaces, I'll generally
have a textured plane or box for something to reflect, but that's about it...
For an example, see my post to pbi...
That aside, when you render schrodinger's box, is the cat inside it alive or
dead? ;)
* can the majority of a small number of scenes be vast? Hmmm....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> escreveu na mensagem
news:3bcafa8c$1@news.povray.org...
> That aside, when you render schrodinger's box, is the cat inside it alive
or
> dead? ;)
Oh, that's an easy one: both.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ruy wrote:
> "Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> escreveu na mensagem
> news:3bcafa8c$1@news.povray.org...
> > That aside, when you render schrodinger's box, is the cat inside it alive
> or
> > dead? ;)
>
> Oh, that's an easy one: both.
No. Neither.
--
Jon A. Cruz
http://www.geocities.com/joncruz/action.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote in message
news:3bcafa8c$1@news.povray.org...
>
> That aside, when you render schrodinger's box, is the cat inside it alive
or
> dead? ;)
>
That depends on the state of the box (open/closed), the position of the
camera
and wheter or not a computer can be considered an observer for the purpose
of making quantum wavefroms collapse.
<grin>
Gail
--
*************************************************************************
* gsh### [at] monotixcoza * Step into the abyss, *
* http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~gail/ * and let go. Babylon 5 *
*************************************************************************
* Just think of me as the storm before the calm Magic: The Gathering*
*************************************************************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gail Shaw" <gsh### [at] monotixcoza> wrote in message
news:3bcbce99@news.povray.org...
>
>
> That depends on the state of the box (open/closed), the position of the
> camera
> and wheter or not a computer can be considered an observer for the purpose
> of making quantum wavefroms collapse.
>
So how does bill resolve rendering a closed box if he insists on rendering the
hidden parts?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote :
>
> So how does bill resolve rendering a closed box if he insists on rendering
the
> hidden parts?
You make some switch/case statements that put a animatable cat in it if
the particle fails to decay, and puts a stiff cat in it if it does decay...
or is that the other way around... Anyway, then you make a random decay
function for the particle.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
