 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Care to define what "extrude" means?
>>
>> It does exactly what you would think it does, given the name.
>
> No, I mean... I don't know what the word "extrude" means.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3Aextrude
> I gather they've been working on documenting it / making it was obscure
> more recently...
If by "recently" you mean two years ago, yes, probably. Watch the tutorials.
They're good.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> The problem is that, fundamentally, it's very hard to manipulate
> straight lines in a way that approximates curves. 10 years ago I used a
> couple of editors that would let you do things like move several points
> at once, or have a "magnet" feature where nearby points were sort of
> "pulled" towards where you're clicking, but the basic problem is that
> it's almost impossible to make anything good out of straight lines.
> (Unless, of course, you're actually *trying* to make something with
> straight lines - in which case it's fairly easy.)
>
> For all the wizzy features of those editors of old, even creating an
> object as trivial as a banana was impossibly difficult. And, for some
> reason, modern editors seem to have drastically fewer tools to help.
oh, please...
http://blenderartists.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=85399&d=1253912116
all I did was start with the standard Blender box, select the top face
and extrude it from various different view points (CTRL+left mouse
button) and scale each new segment accordingly.
I then rendered after adding a subdivision surface modifier up to level
3 in the top image and without it in the bottom image to show the very
geometric and simple cage that is what I effectively deal with...
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> I think that the point is that nobody designs models using raw triangle
>> meshes. Instead, all models are designed using NURBS or other similar
>> spline-based surfaces which are easy to edit. The triangle mesh you see
>> in the end result has been automatically generated from those surface
>> models.
>
> That would make a lot more sense, yes...
Subdivision surfaces are just like that, except generated smoothness is
controlled by number of iterations.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> scott wrote:
>> It just took me about 1 minute to make a simple banana shape in
>> Blender. Blender even gives you a box to start with, so I just rotated
>> the top face a bit, scaled it down and extruded, then repeated 5 or 6
>> times.
bwahaha, I took 2 minutes of my time to do one of my own before seeing
this... :P
> (FWIW, I *always* get Wing3D and Blender confused. But isn't Blender the
> one that's supposedly impossible to learn due to the weird UI?)
Yes, it's so friggin' impossible that I bow in respect for the tortured
souls that use it to produce some of these images:
http://blenderartists.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=84834&d=1253361663
http://www.myline.be/myline/3D/268_1.jpg
http://www.artofinterpretation.com/images/philosophiaandherproblems-byrjt2007.jpg
http://www.blender.org/typo3temp/pics/782b767f1e.jpg
http://www.artofinterpretation.com/images/wc255-autumnsbane-byrjt2007.jpg
http://www.blender.org/typo3temp/pics/d3dd9a6f20.jpg
I don't find it inherently more difficult to learn than emacs, vim or
any modern IDE.
> As far as I could tell, Wings [I think that's the one I tried] doesn't
> even offer this much help...
Start by learning the "box modelling" technique.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Yes, it's so friggin' impossible that I bow in respect for the tortured
> souls that use it to produce some of these images:
To be fair, each of those I'm guessing took weeks to model. :-) I just wish
I could get that good. If I could reproduce a reasonable facsimile of what I
saw in photographs, I'd be happy. :-)
> Start by learning the "box modelling" technique.
I'm waiting for a Minority-Report style 3D modeling interface.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Yes, it's so friggin' impossible that I bow in respect for the
>> tortured souls that use it to produce some of these images:
>
> To be fair, each of those I'm guessing took weeks to model. :-) I just
> wish I could get that good. If I could reproduce a reasonable facsimile
> of what I saw in photographs, I'd be happy. :-)
I too lack artistic skills and go for "copy". My /modus operandi/ is:
whenever I see a great picture, I try to reproduce it. I fail more
often than anything, sure... :)
>> Start by learning the "box modelling" technique.
>
> I'm waiting for a Minority-Report style 3D modeling interface.
I remember that video... :)
while that doesn't happen, at least Blender 2.5 is getting quite a
face-lift. The splash screen alone looks as good as any found in modern
IDEs:
http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?t=167428
The Hotkeys dropdown is sure to make some converts... :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> while that doesn't happen, at least Blender 2.5 is getting quite a
> face-lift.
I would far rather they fix the bugs and finish the documentation than work
on the splash screen. However, I understand it *is* free software (thanks,
Warp!) and that splash screens are probably much more fun to code. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> while that doesn't happen, at least Blender 2.5 is getting quite a
>> face-lift.
>
> I would far rather they fix the bugs and finish the documentation than
> work on the splash screen. However, I understand it *is* free software
> (thanks, Warp!) and that splash screens are probably much more fun to
> code. :-)
You know that splash screen is just part of the overall new graphical
user interface engine for 2.5, don't you? Couple that with volumetrics
and an optimized raytracing core, and Blender 2.5 will fly like never
before...
nobody works on documentation when they're busy coding... Managers
should do that in their spare time! :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> You know that splash screen is just part of the overall new graphical
> user interface engine for 2.5, don't you?
I haven't really been following it. It was more just being snarky. :-)
I'd probably use blender a whole bunch more but for the bugs I run into.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Care to define what "extrude" means?
>>
>> It does exactly what you would think it does, given the name.
>
> No, I mean... I don't know what the word "extrude" means.
To pull out.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> I too lack artistic skills and go for "copy". My /modus operandi/ is:
> whenever I see a great picture, I try to reproduce it. I fail more
> often than anything, sure... :)
I do the same thing with music.
You show me a piece of music, and I can tell you exactly why it works
and why it sounds cool. But you show me a blank piece of paper and I'm
like "hmm, what would sound cool?"
I think I'm basically too much of an automaton to be creative. :-(
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> You show me a piece of music, and I can tell you exactly why it works
> and why it sounds cool. But you show me a blank piece of paper and I'm
> like "hmm, what would sound cool?"
There's a book called "This is your brain on music" that's actually very
interesting. I got half way thru it and then left it in the hotel, and I
never bought it again. But it's all about what you might call the technology
of music itself (not creating music, but why scales work and stuff). It kind
of goes about answering the question "why does everyone use the same scales"
and such. "Why does this form of music sound sad, and what distinguishes it
from happy music." Etc.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You show me a piece of music, and I can tell you exactly why it works
>> and why it sounds cool. But you show me a blank piece of paper and I'm
>> like "hmm, what would sound cool?"
>
> There's a book called "This is your brain on music" that's actually very
> interesting. I got half way thru it and then left it in the hotel, and I
> never bought it again. But it's all about what you might call the
> technology of music itself (not creating music, but why scales work and
> stuff). It kind of goes about answering the question "why does everyone
> use the same scales" and such. "Why does this form of music sound sad,
> and what distinguishes it from happy music." Etc.
Chromatic scales, diatonic scales, pentatonic scales, Pythagorean
tuning, equal-tempered tuning, harmonic series, the circle of fifths,
major and minor scales... it's amazing what you can pick up if your
bored but curious.
And FWIW, not everybody uses the same scales. (Particularly people you
wouldn't class as "Westerners".)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> And FWIW, not everybody uses the same scales. (Particularly people you
> wouldn't class as "Westerners".)
Everyone uses the same octaves, and everyone partitions the octave in the
same ratios, even if they have different points where they say "that's a note."
Anyway, I only got halfway thru the book, so I might be misrepresenting
something a bit. But it was an interesting book.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> You show me a piece of music, and I can tell you exactly why it works
>>> and why it sounds cool. But you show me a blank piece of paper and
>>> I'm like "hmm, what would sound cool?"
We're performers, not writers. ;)
>> "why does everyone use the same scales" and such. "Why does this form
>> of music sound sad, and what distinguishes it from happy music." Etc.
It's the balance between harmonic tensions and relaxations present in
adjacent intervals. In minor scale modes, points of tensions are
positioned a little bit earlier in the scale than in major (happy) scales.
Of course, rhythm might have a say on this too... :)
> Chromatic scales, diatonic scales, pentatonic scales, Pythagorean
> tuning, equal-tempered tuning, harmonic series, the circle of fifths,
> major and minor scales... it's amazing what you can pick up if your
> bored but curious.
I don't think that has to do with boredom. Whichever field you choose
for hobby or career, you're likely to want to know more about it, its
history, techniques etc.
> And FWIW, not everybody uses the same scales. (Particularly people you
> wouldn't class as "Westerners".)
They use theirs (particularly the pentatonic). ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
