"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
> > St. wrote:
> >> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
> >> news:firstname.lastname@example.org...
> >>> nemesis wrote:
> >>>> that sounds great! I'm guessing you're expecting pure CSG, no meshes?
> >>> That's the idea, of course.
> >> In this day and age, that's a real shame.
> >> ~Steve~
> > Don't get me wrong - there's no way I'd turn away a good model if one got
> > submitted. I just prefer CSG for its flexibility (through macros and / or
> > parameters), compactness, and the fact that it uses real curves.
> Hmm, well, true. It's just me though, I feel restricted when I can offer
> so much with an .obj mesh. After what now, six, seven years(?) using PoV,
> I'll never be able to handle CSG properly, it's just not my thing. I admire
> the guys that can though, no doubt about that.
> > --
> > ...Ben Chambers
> > www.pacificwebguy.com
Nothing wrong with either CSG or meshes I think. The advantage of CSG is the
making of parameterable(?) objects, e.g. a table where you can define the
height, widht and length (which aren't dependent on just straight scale
factors). Of course you can try to hand-code a mesh that has some variable
adjustment (I've done a few). You can also wrap meshes in a macro that can
carry additional simple parameters like scaling and textures.
I tend to use a lot of CSG when modelling, mainly because I don't want to take
the time to learn a modeller, but also for the parameterability(?). For
instance, the smurf house I posted a while back is pure CSG and has a number of
variables that I can change on the fly to adjust it's look.
I do occasionally use meshes as well though, either premade meshes by others or
for example, meshes made from TopMod.
I guess after all this, I'll have to submit an object or two now...
Post a reply to this message