 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/04/2023 10:49, jr wrote:
> kitchen, yes, will take that. (more please)
I looked through this classification, maybe we can use some categories
from it ?
https://www.printables.com/model?category=3
--
YB
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
thanking everyone for the links and suggestions, looking at stuff helped some
(may have :-)).
the following then is another draft, "RFC" etc. thanks.
Areas of Interest
Abstract Forms
Buildings/Architecture
Domestic
Commercial
Industrial
Interior
Exterior
Household/Office Objects
Furniture
Furnishings/Decor
Office
Living room
Kitchen
Bathroom
Bedroom
Computers
Games
Ball Games
Board Games
Puzzles
Video Games
Landscapes
Urban Landscapes
Natural Landscapes
Alien/SF Landscapes
Organic Forms
Terrestrial Flora
Terrestrial Fauna
Alien/SF Flora
Alien/SF Fauna
Microscopic
Space
Terrestrial
Alien/SF
Sports
Vehicles
Aircraft
Watercraft
Rail
Road
Military
Characters
Animal
Pet
Humanoid
Robot
Gadgets
Scale Model
Contribution Types
Objects
Solid (CSG-able)
Non-solid (Non-CSG-able)
Materials
Textures
Pigments
Finishes
Normals
Interiors
Media
Macros
Functions
Isosurface
Positioning
Other
Transforms
Cameras
Uncategorised
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"jr" <cre### [at] gmail com> wrote:
It would be quite nice if we could find a way to make this a sort of
collaborative document - perhaps some way to use OpenOffice.
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/Calc_Guide/Sharing_documents_among_reviewers
Then, people could sign up to handle specific items, and hyperlinks could be
added to items already modeled, thus keeping everything together in one handy
reference document as well as keeping it up-to-date without having a 500-page
thread.
> Abstract Forms
This is a hard one to pin down. Many of these come about through doodling or
"failed" projects. They are functions and surfaces and blobs.
I might call this a "meta-category", as it might be a good catch-all for things
like patterns, mathematical surfaces, functions, L-systems and other algorithms,
or even simple scenes using primitives and CSG that _result_ in "abstract forms"
(such as a Wada Basin).
> Buildings/Architecture
> Domestic
> Commercial
> Industrial
> Interior
> Exterior
Monuments, bridges, dams, tunnels, canals, etc.
Castles, earthworks, fortresses, battlements, etc.
Famous / historical buildings / structures.
> Household/Office Objects
> Furniture
> Furnishings/Decor
> Office
> Living room
> Kitchen
> Bathroom
> Bedroom
> Computers
> Games
> Ball Games
> Board Games
> Puzzles
> Video Games
Darts, outdoor games (badminton, bocci ball, croquet, lawn darts)
> Landscapes
> Urban Landscapes
> Natural Landscapes
> Alien/SF Landscapes
> Organic Forms
> Terrestrial Flora
> Terrestrial Fauna
> Alien/SF Flora
> Alien/SF Fauna
> Microscopic
> Space
> Terrestrial
> Alien/SF
Planets. uv maps, planetary statistics - size, orbital mechanics
nebulae, stars, black holes, quasars, pulsars, asteroids, comets, planetary
rings
> Sports
> Vehicles
> Aircraft
> Watercraft
> Rail
> Road
> Military
> Characters
> Animal
> Pet
> Humanoid
> Robot
> Gadgets
Workshop tools, jigs, and fixtures.
Radios, stereos, speakers, antennae,
> Scale Model
> Contribution Types
> Objects
> Solid (CSG-able)
> Non-solid (Non-CSG-able)
> Materials
> Textures
> Pigments
> Finishes
> Normals
> Interiors
> Media
> Macros
> Functions
> Isosurface
> Positioning
> Other
> Transforms
> Cameras
> Uncategorised
>
>
> regards, jr.
To whatever extent possible, it would make such things more usable (and
therefore likely to be used more) if they were parameterized and coded for
clarity rather than speed/performance.
Have the object take its pigments/textures as arguments/variables, so that those
are all easily modified as well.
Objects that are designed to be placed ON something would likely best be modeled
with the bottom center at the origin, and likewise, things that get hung by
ropes, hooks, nails - would have the attachment point at the origin.
It's often "easy" to model the usual CGI something-or-other, but the more
sophisticated and sought after objects are the ones that have those added
elements of imperfection to make them more realistic and less plastic and fake
looking.
Also, a certain degree of modularity would help the collection expand more
rapidly. It might be nice to make a screwdriver or chisel - but if you made a
HANDLE, then it would be easy to match that up with a variety of screwdrivers,
files, chisels, gouges, and other tools, especially if the handle is
parameterized and the textures can easily be changed from wood to metal to
plastic to carbon fiber....
"Combinatorial modeling"
- BW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/6/23 08:13, jr wrote:
> the following then is another draft, "RFC" etc.
The categories Microscopic and Military looked like sub-categories by
indentation. I'd think they both are major categories?
Isosurfaces - perhaps Isosurfaces & Parametrics ?
I see capital letters... He can find the shift keys! Keys which probably
squeak like there is no tomorrow on being used. :-)
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
I see capital letters... He can find the shift keys! Keys which probably
squeak like there is no tomorrow on being used. :-)
YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHIN' YET...
(<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cia_v4vxfE> :-))
> The categories Microscopic and Military looked like sub-categories
> by indentation. I'd think they both are major categories?
unsure (did I mention I'm crap at naming stuff ? :-)), to me they're like
interior + exterior, "qualifiers", rather than categories per se; eg CR's
coronavirus, it'd be 'organic forms' and 'terrestrial fauna' primarily, I guess,
and 'microscopic' too.
a v brief recap of the mechanism. the identation is, in a sense, misleading,
because it shows a hierarchy[*] (in the UI). though if I select 'rail' for eg
the "rocket", then it is just 'rail'. it only becomes a 'vehicle' when that
label too is selected.
[*] which could be constructed from the table, but currently isn't.
the recent suggestions (from both you and BE) have been added. I probably went
over the top with the 'functions', nudged by you; must be all the recent work
on/with functions in the NGs. :-)
I've decided to add 'inorganic' to the 'abstract forms', as BE points out,
difficult to (sub-)categorise. 'astronomy' under 'space' is meant for "based on
observation/measurement data using/providing objects, as many items in BE's list
imply. re the architectural, 'infrastructure' standing for dams, canals, etc,
and 'historical/monument' to cover the castles + fortresses and so on.
below the final draft (close to, anyway).
(and sorry re delay, had meant to reply days ago)
regards, jr.
-----<snip>-----
Areas of Interest
Abstract/Inorganic Forms
Buildings/Architecture
Domestic
Commercial
Industrial
Historical/Monument
Infrastructure
Interior
Exterior
Household/Office Objects
Computers
Furniture
Furnishings/Decor
Office
Living space
Kitchen
Bathroom
Bedroom
Games
Ball Games
Board Games
Puzzles
Video Games
Landscapes
Urban Landscapes
Natural Landscapes
Alien/SF Landscapes
Organic Forms
Terrestrial Flora
Terrestrial Fauna
Alien/SF Flora
Alien/SF Fauna
Microscopic
Space
Terrestrial
Alien/SF
Astronomy
Sports
Vehicles
Aircraft
Watercraft
Rail
Road
Military
Characters
Animal
Pet
Humanoid
Robot
Gadgets
Scale Model
Contribution Types
Objects
Solid (CSG-able)
Non-solid (Non-CSG-able)
Materials
Textures
Pigments
Finishes
Normals
Interiors
Media
Macros
Functions
Isosurface
Positioning
Pattern/Object/Image
Parametric
HF
Other
Transforms
Cameras
Uncategorised
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
replying to the various categories suggested in reply to WFP,
but thanks, I knew there was more than just an orange stapler ;-).
re "Lakes of Wada" -- wow.
> It would be quite nice if we could find a way to make this a sort of
> collaborative document - perhaps some way to use OpenOffice.
> Then, people could sign up to handle specific items, and hyperlinks could be
> added to items already modeled, thus keeping everything together in one handy
> reference document as well as keeping it up-to-date without having a 500-page
> thread.
everything in one place and collaborative is appealing. (personally have
no "office" s/ware other than Google Docs/Sheets/etc, which I never use)
> ...
> To whatever extent possible, it would make such things more usable (and
> therefore likely to be used more) if they were parameterized and coded for
> clarity rather than speed/performance.
> Have the object take its pigments/textures as arguments/variables, so that those
> are all easily modified as well.
> Objects that are designed to be placed ON something would likely best be modeled
> with the bottom center at the origin, and likewise, things that get hung by
> ropes, hooks, nails - would have the attachment point at the origin.
> It's often "easy" to model the usual CGI something-or-other, but the more
> sophisticated and sought after objects are the ones that have those added
> elements of imperfection to make them more realistic and less plastic and fake
> looking.
> Also, a certain degree of modularity would help the collection expand more
> rapidly. It might be nice to make a screwdriver or chisel - but if you made a
> HANDLE, then it would be easy to match that up with a variety of screwdrivers,
> files, chisels, gouges, and other tools, especially if the handle is
> parameterized and the textures can easily be changed from wood to metal to
> plastic to carbon fiber....
> "Combinatorial modeling"
worth repeating, _very_ much agree. modular, "inter-operating" objects
would be ideal.
thinking that, perhaps, "BE + CR" would make a fine combo to set out a list
of suggested criteria for (future) object collection submissions. ;-)
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2023-04-14 01:57 (-4), jr wrote:
>
> unsure (did I mention I'm crap at naming stuff ? :-)), to me they're like
> interior + exterior, "qualifiers", rather than categories per se; eg CR's
> coronavirus, it'd be 'organic forms' and 'terrestrial fauna' primarily, I guess,
> and 'microscopic' too.
I don't think of viruses as fauna. I still hear dieticians referring to
bacteria as "flora," probably a holdover from the days when biologists
thought bacteria were plants; but viruses have no analogous history.
> [snip]
> Household/Office Objects
> Computers
> Furniture
> Furnishings/Decor
> Office
> Living space
> Kitchen
> Bathroom
> Bedroom
Would coffee mugs be considered "Furnishings/Decor"?
> [snip]
> Transforms
> Cameras
Great additions!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> On 2023-04-14 01:57 (-4), jr wrote:
> > coronavirus, it'd be 'organic forms' and 'terrestrial fauna' primarily, I guess,
> > and 'microscopic' too.
>
> I don't think of viruses as fauna. I still hear dieticians referring to
> bacteria as "flora," probably a holdover from the days when biologists
> thought bacteria were plants; but viruses have no analogous history.
yes. dilemma(s). fungi too cannot be categorised, really, as is.
> Would coffee mugs be considered "Furnishings/Decor"?
furnishings. :-) not ideal, but definitely not decorative (only).
> > Transforms
> > Cameras
> Great additions!
hey, thanks.
given that there have been no other follow-ups, I'll go with the last published
list, plus added 'Splines' (after 'Transforms'), and, maybe, something like
'Utensils' to go with the 'Furnishings/Decor'.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> hi,
>
> yesbird <sya### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > I like this hierarchy, but only one question: what is a "Scale Model"
> > category ?
>
> thanks (still room for improvement, though :-)). I guess I'm thinking of
> projects like 'Ton' does, eg.
>
<https://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.5d05f9ab6bc50fb5939601860%40news.povray.org%3E/>
>
>
>
> regards, jr.
Hi,
but Ton's project would fit in Vehicles>Rail. I guess it's not necessary to have
an extra category if the model is scaled down from the original. Nobody would
realise it from the image.
regards - Oswald
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
"Droj" <803### [at] drojde> wrote:
> "jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > yesbird <sya### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > > I like this hierarchy, but only one question: what is a "Scale Model"
> > > category ?
> > thanks (still room for improvement, though :-)). I guess I'm thinking of
> > projects like 'Ton' does, eg.
> > ...
> but Ton's project would fit in Vehicles>Rail.
just to repeat something I wrote elsethread, as I feel it's important: there is
no 'Vehicles->Rail' category, both categories/labels need selecting. the
hierarchy is implicit only.
> I guess it's not necessary to have
> an extra category if the model is scaled down from the original. Nobody would
> realise it from the image.
yes and no :-). take two hypothetical cars, one claims 'scale model'. then I'd
expect to be able to re-texture either with little fuss, scale, and use. but
say I want to make a monster truck, already have chassis and wheels, and only
want a body ? then (I would think and hope) the scale model car would make that
an easier task, as I'd expect it to be built from parts.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
