 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
submissions to the Object Collection must be categorised, selecting one or more
applicable categories from a list. the current list, imo, needs improving. to
that end I've listed the existing below, the level of indentation corresponding
to 'Level' in the hierarchy. asking all interested parties to discuss, and
propose additional entries. thanks in advance. nb adding a fourth level would
be ok and work with the existing code, as would partially re-ordering the below
(if needed).
Areas of Interest
Abstract Forms
Buildings
Household/Office Objects
Computers
Games
Ball Games
Board Games
Puzzles
Video Games
Landscapes
Urban Landscapes
Organic Forms
Space
Sports
Vehicles
Contribution Types
Objects
Solid (CSG-able)
Non-solid (Non-CSG-able)
Textures
Pigments
Finishes
Normals
Interiors
Media
Macros
Functions
Isosurface
Positioning
Other
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/03/2023 12:40, jr wrote:
Hi,
I would include some additional categories, for better detalization:
//---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Areas of Interest
> Abstract Forms
> Buildings
> Household/Office Objects
> Computers
> Games
> Ball Games
> Board Games
> Puzzles
> Video Games
> Landscapes
> Urban Landscapes
Nature Landscapes
Mountains
Forests
Desert
...
> Organic Forms
Flora
Trees
Flowers
Grass
...
Fauna
Animals
Birds
Insects
...
Technics
Constructions
Fasteners
Aerospace
Vehicles
...
> Space
> Sports
> Contribution Types
> Objects
> Solid (CSG-able)
> Non-solid (Non-CSG-able)
> Textures
> Pigments
> Finishes
> Normals
> Interiors
> Media
> Macros
> Functions
> Isosurface
> Positioning
> Other
//---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
YB
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I would add a 'Miscellaneous' category. I can foresee some contributions that
might not fall under any specific heading-- although I can't think of an example
off-hand.
>
> Areas of Interest
>...
> Games
> Ball Games
> Board Games
> Puzzles
> Video Games
This might be an example of a too-detailed list. I would think that just 'Games'
would do.
> Landscapes
> Urban Landscapes
Same here. 'Landscapes' by itself might be inclusive enough. There are probably
LOTS of different types of landscapes that contributors could come up with--
mountains, forests, planetary surfaces, etc etc-- which might make a detailed
sub-listing endlessly long and too 'granular'.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
am somewhat disappointed, no one (bar two honourable exceptions) interested much
in improving the OC ?! tja.. there's some time still, so help will be welcome
(and needed, as "decisively classifying" things isn't one of my strengths)
yesbird <sya### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> On 14/03/2023 12:40, jr wrote:
> Hi,
> I would include some additional categories, for better detalization:
> ...
> > Landscapes
> > Urban Landscapes
> Nature Landscapes
> Mountains
> Forests
> Desert
> ...
> > Organic Forms
> Flora
> Trees
> Flowers
> Grass
> ...
> Fauna
> Animals
> Birds
> Insects
> ...
> Technics
> Constructions
> Fasteners
> Aerospace
> Vehicles
> ...
> > Space
> > ...
I'll take the 'natural landscapes', and like the 'flora/fauna' under organic
forms. the "Technics" is a bit "all over" :-), but would like to see your
revised take on those/any categories.
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I would add a 'Miscellaneous' category. I can foresee some contributions that
> might not fall under any specific heading-- although I can't think of an example
> off-hand.
personally, and by inclination, I'd agree. just .. convenient. but that also
is its downside, it would wind up an overused catch-all, I feel.
> > Games
> > Ball Games
> > Board Games
> > Puzzles
> > Video Games
>
> This might be an example of a too-detailed list. I would think that just 'Games'
> would do.
not sure, feel puzzles ought not to be seen as "games", however, you probably
know that on submission you could select, say, just 'Games' and be done.
> ...
> mountains, forests, planetary surfaces, etc etc-- which might make a detailed
> sub-listing endlessly long and too 'granular'.
multiple categories can and should be selected, so "medium granularity" :-) at
least will be ok. using YB's initial suggestion of flora + fauna as example, I
think that's probably "deep" enough in levels. on the other hand, the
'Household/Office Objects' (which ought not have been "lumped together" in the
first place) does need stuff like 'Furniture' and quite a few others to make it
useful at all; as mentioned, up to four "levels", but getting the second + third
tier right will be the art.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/20/23 16:15, jr wrote:
> am somewhat disappointed, no one (bar two honourable exceptions) interested much
> in improving the OC ?! tja.. there's some time still, so help will be welcome
> (and needed, as "decisively classifying" things isn't one of my strengths)
Interested, just lots of other stuff to do too... (My qualifications as
honorable are questionable too, as you know...)
Have you looked at the categories offered by some of the online 3D model
/ material sites ? For example: www.turbosquid.com
If not already suggested, I feel a strength of POV-Ray is the quick
abstract image, the quick icon. These are not really objects I guess,
but I find them interesting. Well, we could require they be framed! :-)
Maybe such a category would get noisy / swamped though...
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 20/03/2023 om 21:15 schreef jr:
> hi,
>
> am somewhat disappointed, no one (bar two honourable exceptions) interested much
> in improving the OC ?! tja.. there's some time still, so help will be welcome
> (and needed, as "decisively classifying" things isn't one of my strengths)
>
>
To tell the truth, I have no idea what to answer. Except for very
general categories, I would not go into too much details (at this moment
in time and content of the Collection). If in future further
subdivisions would become necessary, then would be the time to implement
them.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/03/2023 10:38, William F Pokorny wrote:
> Have you looked at the categories offered by some of the online 3D model
> / material sites ? For example: www.turbosquid.com
Indeed, or my favorite:
https://www.cgtrader.com
(attached)
--
YB
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'categorias.png' (47 KB)
Preview of image 'categorias.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
