 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Don Heyse wrote:
> Hey, good point. Since we're on the topic of crater plates, I'd like to
> use this part http://peeron.com/inv/parts/3947bpx1 to hijack this thread
... is it hijacking to put a thread back on topic? (even if the title is
changed, it's still the same thread, right?) ...
> and make an observation about part colors. As you can probably see from
> the picture, the shark crater plate uses a printed stipple pattern to
> produce the illusion of a fade from black to blue along the meandering
> edge of the underwater river pattern. I don't think anyone in their right
> mind would ever attempt to reproduce all of the stipple dots in ldraw
> quads, so the only way left to do this in the current ldraw syntax is by
> using many shades of color between black and blue. I'm not sure there are
> enough in the 256-512 range to accomplish this, especially if we're gonna
> re-purpose some of them for official brick colors.
>
> I've seen lots of stippled fades in the recent printed parts and stickers,
> so I suspect we'll eventually be forced to allow direct RGB values for
> printed things, one way or another. Maybe the RGBs will be in these
> newfangled texture thingies. I don't know.
Which is exactly why I brought up texture mapping. Solving gradients with
texture mapping makes a lot of sense, for the reasons you mention.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
And again, I forgot to include a bit. And second-posting about something very
cool!
Don,
Be sure to take a look at Joshua's texture mapping primer/exposition on
Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2048041&id=1532162912&l=4199f78c01
It's good stuff, and could have very good benefits to LDraw.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Steve Bliss wrote:
> Be sure to take a look at Joshua's texture mapping primer/exposition on
> Facebook:
>
> http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2048041&id=1532162912&l=4199f78c01
>
> It's good stuff, and could have very good benefits to LDraw.
Yeah, I checked it out the first time it was mentioned. I even poked
around in the LDView CVS archives for a few minutes looking for hints
of the magic syntax before the Walled Garden stuff got posted. Looks
very promising! I guess I'm finally gonna have to crack open that
OpenGL Shading Language book gathering dust bunnies in the corner if
I want to keep the lowest common denominator LDraw editor up to snuff.
Well, maybe slightly below the good snuff...
I do actually have a facebook account and would've asked a few questions
about the syntax, but I have trouble with the facebook interface. It
confuses me, like trying to converse in a large chatty crowd. Plus I
figure I'm most likely part of the problem here at lugnet. Asking so
many questions, slowing down the rate of progress, and all that.
Have fun,
Don
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Don Heyse wrote:
> Yeah, I checked it out the first time it was mentioned. I even poked
> around in the LDView CVS archives for a few minutes looking for hints
> of the magic syntax before the Walled Garden stuff got posted. Looks
> very promising! I guess I'm finally gonna have to crack open that
> OpenGL Shading Language book gathering dust bunnies in the corner if
> I want to keep the lowest common denominator LDraw editor up to snuff.
> Well, maybe slightly below the good snuff...
I like your thinking! :)
But Shader Language programming is really more along the lines of what we'll
need for the next step I'd like to see: gloss maps. Those will allow shiny
paint on torsos (for instance) to shine in the light, making gold, silver, and
copper shiny parts do their proper thing.
Far advanced, and not necessary for the current round of improvements.
TEXMAP is OpenGL 101 level, pure and simple.
> I do actually have a facebook account and would've asked a few questions
> about the syntax, but I have trouble with the facebook interface. It
> confuses me, like trying to converse in a large chatty crowd. Plus I
> figure I'm most likely part of the problem here at lugnet. Asking so
> many questions, slowing down the rate of progress, and all that.
Questions got the syntax to a workable state. I actually developed another
syntax extension (still not released or under consideration, requires
large-scale -- but minor -- changes to a large portion of the library, best left
otherwise unmentioned here), so I had SOME experience with improving LDRAW
without breaking it; but we had a full-fledged proof of just about every major
decorated part of LEGO, and many minor ones, plus gradients and other
alpha-channel tricks, and we thought we were ready to roll. It took questions
from Travis and Leonardo Zide to get us to rethinking some of our approach and
even adjust it to get the syntax that's ready to be beat on at this point. And
even though those feel nicely cooked, I bet there's still a "gotcha!" or two out
there waiting to be discovered...
-- joshuaD
| | | | | | |
