St. wrote:
> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
> news:479516b0$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>>St. wrote:
> 
> 
>>>     In this day and age, that's a real shame.
> 
> 
> 
>>Ohhh!  Glad that got said before I put too much time in.  That should be 
>>made clearer on the web page.
> 
> 
>     Heh, well, I can't think of anything better than mixing a good mesh 
> modeler with PoV. For me at least, it = perfect.  :)
> 
>       ~Steve~
> 
> 
> 
Your postings on p.b.images have made that pretty clear.  Me, I can 
swing either way, but I want to be the one who decides.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:47953247$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
>> news:479516b0$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>>>St. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>     In this day and age, that's a real shame.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Ohhh!  Glad that got said before I put too much time in.  That should be 
>>>made clearer on the web page.
>>
>>
>>     Heh, well, I can't think of anything better than mixing a good mesh 
>> modeler with PoV. For me at least, it = perfect.  :)
>>
>>       ~Steve~
>>
>>
>>
> Your postings on p.b.images have made that pretty clear.  Me, I can swing 
> either way, but I want to be the one who decides.

    And of course, that's the correct way to tackle it Jim. I think we all 
made decisions over the years about how we would 'refine' our workflow using 
PoV, and I think I've found my path. But, I've been tampering with the new 
Crysis game editor recently, and I'm like 'painting' different layers of 
rock textures on a heightfield mountain, and thinking; "Wow, if only I could 
do this in PoV". If PoV was like this, it would seriously rule. :) Well, it 
seriously rules anyway, but you know what I mean. This isn't a complaint, 
just a thought.

     ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message 
news:47952fdf$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message 
>> news:4794efd1@news.povray.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.

     ~Steve~


>
> -- 
> ...Ben Chambers
> www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
> news:47952fdf$1@news.povray.org...
> > St. wrote:
> >> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
> >> news:4794efd1@news.povray.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.
>
>      ~Steve~
>
>
> >
> > --
> > ...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...

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
>     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.

Has a macro been written to handle .obj files?  I would probably have to 
draw a line on files that can't be handled w/o running them through a 
converter (so at least put in in a mesh2 or something).

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Trevor G Quayle wrote:
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> 
>>"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
>>news:47952fdf$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>>>St. wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
>>>>news:4794efd1@news.povray.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.
>>
>>     ~Steve~
>>
>>
>>
>>>--
>>>...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...
> 
> -tgq
> 
> 
Sure but with some objects there would be diminishing gain from being 
parametrized, versus the work needed to do it.  I was contemplating a 
desk fan for instance.  The design is what it is. And it involves a 
number of cast metal housings with complex curves, smooth chamfers and 
such. Very difficult to handle in csg without a foregiving attitude. 
Meanwhile, you parametrize a few things, say to lengthen or widen the 
base, but to try and code something like a fan such that one design 
could be morphed into another design by adjusting parameters seems like 
an exercise in cleverness for its own sake with little practical payoff. 
Such a design is an integrated thing, not just a matter of making table 
legs longer to fit a need. Better to simply post a file of the 
unsmoothed mesh in a common format.  It can be imported into a modeller 
and the base made taller or wider just as easily that way, (would work 
for table legs too, btw,) or whole parts of the design concept could be 
morphed by a subsequent artist in ways the original contributor might 
never predict.

Now, on the other hand, I was also contemplating oak file cabinets.  Now 
there I could see a csg solution that could, for instance, allow for 
different matrixes of drawers, anything from a cabinet for 3x5 file 
cards to one for large flat maps, all from the same macro.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> Sure but with some objects there would be diminishing gain from being
> parametrized, versus the work needed to do it.  I was contemplating a
> desk fan for instance.  The design is what it is. And it involves a
> number of cast metal housings with complex curves, smooth chamfers and
> such. Very difficult to handle in csg without a foregiving attitude.
> Meanwhile, you parametrize a few things, say to lengthen or widen the
> base, but to try and code something like a fan such that one design
> could be morphed into another design by adjusting parameters seems like
> an exercise in cleverness for its own sake with little practical payoff.
> Such a design is an integrated thing, not just a matter of making table
> legs longer to fit a need. Better to simply post a file of the
> unsmoothed mesh in a common format.  It can be imported into a modeller
> and the base made taller or wider just as easily that way, (would work
> for table legs too, btw,) or whole parts of the design concept could be
> morphed by a subsequent artist in ways the original contributor might
> never predict.
>
> Now, on the other hand, I was also contemplating oak file cabinets.  Now
> there I could see a csg solution that could, for instance, allow for
> different matrixes of drawers, anything from a cabinet for 3x5 file
> cards to one for large flat maps, all from the same macro.

As I said, I don't think there is anything wrong with adding meshes, you could
even combine a mesh and CSG for certain purposes, or multiple meshes.  Think
about the fan idea: make the housing, base and fan blade from seperate meshes,
they could then be combined in a macro with appropriate variables to control
the fan spin and housing oscillation for specific scenes, motion blur,
animation etc., things that wouldn't be simple with a single mesh object.

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

Trevor G Quayle wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 
>>Sure but with some objects there would be diminishing gain from being
>>parametrized, versus the work needed to do it.  I was contemplating a
>>desk fan for instance.  The design is what it is. And it involves a
>>number of cast metal housings with complex curves, smooth chamfers and
>>such. Very difficult to handle in csg without a foregiving attitude.
>>Meanwhile, you parametrize a few things, say to lengthen or widen the
>>base, but to try and code something like a fan such that one design
>>could be morphed into another design by adjusting parameters seems like
>>an exercise in cleverness for its own sake with little practical payoff.
>>Such a design is an integrated thing, not just a matter of making table
>>legs longer to fit a need. Better to simply post a file of the
>>unsmoothed mesh in a common format.  It can be imported into a modeller
>>and the base made taller or wider just as easily that way, (would work
>>for table legs too, btw,) or whole parts of the design concept could be
>>morphed by a subsequent artist in ways the original contributor might
>>never predict.
>>
>>Now, on the other hand, I was also contemplating oak file cabinets.  Now
>>there I could see a csg solution that could, for instance, allow for
>>different matrixes of drawers, anything from a cabinet for 3x5 file
>>cards to one for large flat maps, all from the same macro.
> 
> 
> As I said, I don't think there is anything wrong with adding meshes, you could
> even combine a mesh and CSG for certain purposes, or multiple meshes.  Think
> about the fan idea: make the housing, base and fan blade from seperate meshes,
> they could then be combined in a macro with appropriate variables to control
> the fan spin and housing oscillation for specific scenes, motion blur,
> animation etc., things that wouldn't be simple with a single mesh object.
> 
> -tgq
> 
> 
Yes, nice idea, I'll admit I hadn't thought of animation uses.  I would 
  have broken up the model into separate mesh objects anyway for ease of 
texturing among other reasons.  The texture list in mesh2 objects is 
great but I often find that for flexibility purposes I like to keep one 
texture per object whenever possible. I think it is necessary too if you 
want to apply materials to a mesh2 object? Anyway long ago I adopted it 
as a standard.

Post a reply to this message

news: web.479654af21a87b7ec150d4c10@news.povray.org...
> As I said, I don't think there is anything wrong with adding meshes, you 
> could
> even combine a mesh and CSG for certain purposes, or multiple meshes. 
> Think
> about the fan idea: make the housing, base and fan blade from seperate 
> meshes,
> they could then be combined in a macro with appropriate variables to 
> control
> the fan spin and housing oscillation for specific scenes, motion blur,
> animation etc., things that wouldn't be simple with a single mesh object.
>
> -tgq


For what it's worth, here's an example of posable mesh in POV-Ray.
http://www.oyonale.com/modeles.php?lang=en&page=55
The demo file contains a small macro that can be used to rotate and animate 
the legs. I just had to copy the coordinates of the origin point (center of 
rotation) for each leg part from the original model and then reorganise the 
leg's hierarchy in POV-Ray.

G.

-- 
*****************************
http://www.oyonale.com
*****************************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

OK, after one week, I've had a submission from one person.

Unfortunately, I was hoping for more than this :(

So, I have a couple of questions:

1) Who would participate if given more time?
1b) How much more time would you realistically ask for?

and,

2) Who would participate with a different subject?
2b) What subjects would interest you?

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message