|wwwmwww Wrote:I'll try to check it out one of these days. I was first introduced to POV-Ray back in the mid 90's. Upon first seeing it I told myself that is something I HAVE to learn how to use one of these days.|
Yeah, I learned about POV in like 1992 and have always wanted to give it a shot. Being a programmer the low-level and exact control over the objects is appealing. But, having a real-time modeler is really nice too, since that's more how humans interact with real-world objects. I think there are some GUI modelers for POV, no?
|wwwmwww Wrote:In POV-Ray I think that would be called a surface of rotation. I haven't used that feature so much but I think the exact same thing can be done. Its just not a point and click interface.|
For me it was my only choice (or use an SDS object, but the nurb mesh is easier to construct) since Realsoft does not provide the torus primitive. The nice thing about Realsoft is that the parts used to construct the mesh, i.e. the circle and axis, are retained and can be modified, thus modifying the resulting mesh.
|wwwmwww Wrote:You are too kind. And no I don't have access to the modified POV-Ray mentioned in that paper. I emailed the authors once and asked if they still had their modified source code and they didn't. And modifying the POV-Ray source code is well above what I'm able to do.|
Well, it's a great model! A lot of hard work went into that and I think people these days take computer graphics for granted because they are used everywhere. I have the same problem with writing software, people think it should be cheap and instant, the "dot-com crash" is proof of this general naivety towards computers, software, and the Internet.
|wwwmwww Wrote:The oultine you see there is actual geometry. The strait lines are cylinders, some of the curved lines are tori, etc. Note they even cast shadows. If I had used the method in the paper there would be no way to show the outline by itself without the cannon present and even if you could it wouldn't be actual geometry and thus wouldn't cast a shadow.|
Wow! That is a lot of work, but the results are fantastic.
Haha, that was funny enough to get a chuckle out of me...
|wwwmwww Wrote:Sounds good. Some of your part names I don't particularly like but I do think that was a GREAT idea. It sure makes things easier to talk about.|
Well, let's change them then. I could not see trying to have a conversation about lightcycles if everyone was calling the parts by a different name. Here is my list and some reasoning, let's get something we both like. I call anything used in a boolean operation that removes geometry from another object a "cutter". We can change that too. I tried to come up with names that seemed logical and that would give each part a purpose other than "upper side effects", "lower side effects", etc.:
1. Canopy (does not include windshield or shoulders)
2. Canopy Shoulders (the tori)
3. Canopy Sides (now includes what I was calling the "side lower" and "side toe" as one polygon. So I suppose this name should simply become "Sides".)
4. Foot Rest (only thing I could come up with)
7. Wings (that's just what they look like... at little...
8. Chassis (the rest of the lightcycle is built on this)
9. Engine (maybe should be changed to power supply, battery, capacitor, wheel cone?)
10. Transmission (can't have an engine without a transmission. But the lightcycles go from zero to top-speed instantly, so I suppose a transmission would not be required.)
11. Light Jets (the jet wall has to be made bybuy viagra onlinehttp://www.bilimselbilisim.com/haberler_detay.aspx?id=42 viagra online