| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Don Heyse wrote:
> <snip> 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
> 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, [...]
No one in his right mind would do this baseplate without using texture mapping.
OK, Philo would, but I question that he's right in the head on a regular basis.
:)
Even so, the question would be, should one duplicate the nature of the stippling
pattern, or go the easier (and some might say, better looking) route of a
gradient in those areas?
-- joshuaD
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Joshua Delahunty wrote:
> No one in his right mind would do this baseplate without using texture
> mapping.
>
> Even so, the question would be, should one duplicate the nature of the
> stippling pattern, or go the easier (and some might say, better looking)
> route of a gradient in those areas?
Well, since the stippling pattern is just an artifact of the printing
process, I'd say it's foolish to reproduce it. Some of the dots on the
newer stippled gradients are so tiny I can't even see them without a huge
magnifier (or maybe I just need bifocals) so it makes absolutely no sense
to reproduce the dots.
Anyhow, if we're gonna allow the full gamut for Textures, why not allow
it for the fallback vector patterns. It hardly seem fair for you young
whipper-snappers with all your fancy new hardware to lord it over us
mere mortals getting by with the lesser equipment. ;) If I can't have
LDraw with textures on my android phoneputer, I still want it to look
pretty good.
Just whip up some official guidelines for the patterns, like say:
if it looks like the printed pattern uses official colors then use the
numbered colors. Otherwise feel free to use the RBG colors.
Works for me...
Don
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Joshua Delahunty wrote:
> > No one in his right mind would do this baseplate without using texture
> > mapping.
> >
> > Even so, the question would be, should one duplicate the nature of the
> > stippling pattern, or go the easier (and some might say, better looking)
> > route of a gradient in those areas?
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Don Heyse wrote:> Well, since the stippling pattern is
just an artifact of the printing
> process, I'd say it's foolish to reproduce it. Some of the dots on the
> newer stippled gradients are so tiny I can't even see them without a huge
> magnifier (or maybe I just need bifocals) so it makes absolutely no sense
> to reproduce the dots.
Interesting. Not the response I was expecting. :)
Back when I was building the first gradient example for the texture mapping
proof
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30700113&l=4fdc180c94&id=1532162912
(this was the feature that won over Philo), I used my scanner to scan the image
I needed. In 30 seconds I had a mockup that was nearly as good as the real
thing, IF you didn't need the base color to show through.
[BTW, if you're asking yourself "does that pattern REALLY fade into the
background? Travis asked that too. Use "Next" to see the same item in green]
Then I spent ... I dunno, an hour tops? ... redoing the image in Adobe
Illustrator over the top of the image.
While the stipple dots ARE noticeable with the naked eye, it was the scanning
process that really made them stand out, and I was trying to decide whether they
should stay.
I haven't looked closely at the Aquazone baseplate in a bit, but I thought the
dots were QUITE visible, almost a feature?
I was worried with first cut of the dish I'm linking, because the dots weren't
visible. Would I have complaints it looked "too good?"
This IS the group who argued whether the ice cream sign on a brick should be
drawn "ideally", or offset and corrupted, as every known printed version seemed
to be "out in the wild", after all. :-P
> Anyhow, if we're gonna allow the full gamut for Textures, why not allow
> it for the fallback vector patterns. It hardly seem fair for you young
> whipper-snappers with all your fancy new hardware to lord it over us
> mere mortals getting by with the lesser equipment. ;) If I can't have
> LDraw with textures on my android phoneputer, I still want it to look
> pretty good.
I just did a quick check: The Android supports OpenGL ES. Even the lowliest 1.0
OpenGL ES supports texture mapping (and later versions get fancy in a hurry).
We're not trying to shoot for the moon on our first try here.
Heck, I've even seen software texture mapping routines. This isn't one of those
H/W Transform and Lighting features that didn't exist before hardware, after
all.
I'm certain not a young'n, either. I've struggled with some pretty paltry
hardware over the years. Heck, I used BriCAD and thought that was THE COOLEST
THING EVER (a recent resurrection of that code did NOT live up to expectations).
But the most minimal of systems now come with quite capable graphics. I can say
that because I was witness to Tore getting a system (on the cheap) that does
some nice stuff right out of the box.
<snip>
-- joshuaD
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Joshua Delahunty wrote:
> > Anyhow, if we're gonna allow the full gamut for Textures, why not allow
> > it for the fallback vector patterns. It hardly seem fair for you young
> > whipper-snappers with all your fancy new hardware to lord it over us
> > mere mortals getting by with the lesser equipment. ;) If I can't have
> > LDraw with textures on my android phoneputer, I still want it to look
> > pretty good.
>
> I just did a quick check: The Android supports OpenGL ES. Even the
> lowliest 1.0 OpenGL ES supports texture mapping (and later versions
> get fancy in a hurry). We're not trying to shoot for the moon on our
> first try here.
Yeah, I know what's available at the low end of OpenGl. That's where I
live. I was just trying to keep up the curmudgeonly atmosphere of this
place with the whipper-snapper comment. Did I do it wrong?
Oh well, at least there's still that gloss map business to give me an
excuse to crack open the Shading Language book.
Thanks for that,
Don
|
|
|
