 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/10/2011 11:51, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> I would like to be able to plug a wii remote into my PC and do some real 3d
> modeling with it...
I always wondered why 3D modeling didn't use 3D controllers. How about
Kinect? You could probably start getting close, especially if they managed
to make one with milimeter precision.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nekar Xenos escreveu:
> I would like to be able to plug a wii remote into my PC and do some real
> 3d modeling with it...
I think it'd be awful. Just like driving a race game by grabbing an air
wheel with your stretched arms for hours. Let alone it's got nothing of
precision, like numeric fields for dimensions or something.
I'd much rather build some small scale model or sculpt away something in
clay and then have it 3D scanned.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/06/2011 07:51 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> I would like to be able to plug a wii remote into my PC and do some real
> 3d modeling with it...
"You there, cadet. Why aren't you blasting those enemy troops to hell?"
"I'm trying, sir. But the Wiimote thinks I want to *hug* the enemy forces!"
Now extrapolate how horrifying this would be for 3D modelling. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/10/2011 13:34, nemesis wrote:
> I think it'd be awful. Just like driving a race game by grabbing an air
> wheel with your stretched arms for hours. Let alone it's got nothing of
> precision, like numeric fields for dimensions or something.
I bet you could make it work, if you wanted something like sketch-up, where
much/most of your drawing is based on relationships with other parts of the
drawings. In Sketchup, you can (for example) cut the tip off a corner by
starting an arc, pointing at the edge, moving to the other edge and letting
it snap to the diagonal, moving the midpoint until it snaps to being tangent
with the edges, and then taking the new face and pushing it back until it
snaps flush with the back face of the block you're trimming.
And heck, voice recognition for precision. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/06/2011 11:09 PM, Darren New wrote:
> And heck, voice recognition for precision. :-)
Hahaha! Yes, the solution to something really inaccurate is to use
something even *more* inaccurate! :-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/11/2011 1:56, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On 10/06/2011 11:09 PM, Darren New wrote:
>
>> And heck, voice recognition for precision. :-)
>
> Hahaha! Yes, the solution to something really inaccurate is to use something
> even *more* inaccurate! :-D
Yes. We do that all the time. What do you think digital technology is?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 10:56:23 +0200, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> On 10/06/2011 11:09 PM, Darren New wrote:
>
>> And heck, voice recognition for precision. :-)
>
> Hahaha! Yes, the solution to something really inaccurate is to use
> something even *more* inaccurate! :-D
>
Voice recognition with Pov-Ray...?
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Hahaha! Yes, the solution to something really inaccurate is to use
>> something even *more* inaccurate! :-D
>
> Yes. We do that all the time. What do you think digital technology is?
Using a digital representation for something which is actually
continuous allows you to trade an insignificant degrees in capture
precision for an infinite gain in copy fidelity.
Using a digital representation for something which is actually digital
anyway is just a case of using the correct tool for the job. :-P
What you're proposing is akin to "hey, it's really hard to hit a dart
board from 237 cm away; let's try doing in blind-fold instead".
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/12/2011 5:21, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Hahaha! Yes, the solution to something really inaccurate is to use
>>> something even *more* inaccurate! :-D
>>
>> Yes. We do that all the time. What do you think digital technology is?
>
> Using a digital representation for something which is actually continuous
> allows you to trade an insignificant degrees in capture precision for an
> infinite gain in copy fidelity.
That's what you want here. You have a number in your head. You want to copy
it into the computer. You have a continuous, imprecise channel to do so,
namely spoken words.
So you go digital. "Zero", "One", "Two", ...
You lose all the wonderful subtleties ones voice can convey, and you wind up
with something very precise and accurate, by limiting the analog channel to
only carrying digital information.
> What you're proposing is akin to "hey, it's really hard to hit a dart board
> from 237 cm away; let's try doing in blind-fold instead".
Nonsense. I'm proposing an alternative to a keyboard, is all. It's not like
I'm recommending that you whistle the pitch that corresponds to the height
of the box you want to draw.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 22:34:16 +0200, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Nekar Xenos escreveu:
>> I would like to be able to plug a wii remote into my PC and do some
>> real 3d modeling with it...
>
> I think it'd be awful. Just like driving a race game by grabbing an air
> wheel with your stretched arms for hours. Let alone it's got nothing of
> precision, like numeric fields for dimensions or something.
>
> I'd much rather build some small scale model or sculpt away something in
> clay and then have it 3D scanned.
>
I'm thinking along the lines of organic shapes modeled with hand motions -
not mechanical precision drafting.
I was watching Prototype this today and they mentioned the software that
might be just right for the job on PC: ARToolKit
http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hitl.washington.edu%2Fartoolkit%2F&ei=oU0ZTuP-Osb0sgas6IShDw&usg=AFQjCNFyuox_TxUcNi4C8GqL47mNqXU8Ng
I've just found this on the net. It looks interesting:
http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fv3d2.tu-bs.de%2FCGV%2FPeople%2Fpeople%2Fkim%2FPublications%2F_id227bb_&ei=H08ZTrW0K4bbsgbkm5WqDw&usg=AFQjCNEQHotuuyMcl3F83f-5cHgaKF3eBA
I think it would be nice to have a "hand modelling tool" in Wings3d for
instance =)
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
