| |
I’m working my way through a series of 4-wide fire apparatus right now. And
while this isn’t the first one in the series, this is the one I’m most happy
with up to this point.
For a few reasons:
- the truck itself came out pretty much exactly as I had planned
- there is a nice high-res picture of the truck, to show what it should look like
- the instructions themselves now have the parts list for each step included
Here is a link to the BIP entry for Ladder 110:
http://www.bricksonthebrain.com/instructions/main.cfm?cat=45&review=685&revOn=true
As well, I just wanted to say thanks again to everyone who contributed to this
thread:
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/ray/?n=1833
You all provided excellent advice and examples in response to my naive and
sometimes clueless questions. For what it’s worth, I think that thread is now a
nice set of ‘tips and tricks’ for lighting techniques to use for rendering
models in POV-Ray.
Any feedback on the model, the instructions, or the render are most welcome.
Thanks,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.ray, Allan Bedford wrote:
| |
I’m working my way through a series of 4-wide fire apparatus right now. And
while this isn’t the first one in the series, this is the one I’m most happy
with up to this point.
For a few reasons:
- the truck itself came out pretty much exactly as I had planned
- there is a nice high-res picture of the truck, to show what it should look like
- the instructions themselves now have the parts list for each step included
Here is a link to the BIP entry for Ladder 110:
http://www.bricksonthebrain.com/instructions/main.cfm?cat=45&review=685&revOn=true
As well, I just wanted to say thanks again to everyone who contributed to
this thread:
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/ray/?n=1833
You all provided excellent advice and examples in response to my naive and
sometimes clueless questions. For what it’s worth, I think that thread is
now a nice set of ‘tips and tricks’ for lighting techniques to use for
rendering models in POV-Ray.
Any feedback on the model, the instructions, or the render are most welcome.
|
Spiffy model. Especially the ladder with the nozzle at the top! Also a great use
of arches and rear fenders (how I wish that fender came in a split so you could
use it on 6 wide trucks)
Needs more greebles, though. Even ladder trucks have some pumper appurtenances
so modeling some of that stuff would add, I think.
The instructions seem well thought out in terms of sequence of steps and having
the parts box at each step helps. I know (think?) this is a standard lpub thing
now, IIRC but it is nice.
Stylistically though, I just can’t get excited about lightening previous parts
to show current step parts, or by the use of rendered parts without strong edge
lines. I like the more cartoonish instructions that Lego themselves do, with big
chunky edge lines. But that’s just me.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.inst, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.cad.ray, Allan Bedford wrote:
| |
I’m working my way through a series of 4-wide fire apparatus right now.
|
|
| |
| |
Any feedback on the model, the instructions, or the render are most welcome.
|
Spiffy model. Especially the ladder with the nozzle at the top! Also a great
use of arches and rear fenders (how I wish that fender came in a split so you
could use it on 6 wide trucks)
|
I’ve used the 1x4 arch on each of my 3 apparatus so far. I think it helps add
realism at this small scale, in the way it hugs the tyres so well.
| |
Needs more greebles, though. Even ladder trucks have some pumper
appurtenances so modeling some of that stuff would add, I think.
|
I agree. This is why I’m working on a series of vehicles. So I can experiment
with varies levels of detail. The 2nd one in the series (Pumper 3) was based on
a real engine, unlike this ladder truck. I did try to include more details on
it. However, at 4 studs wide you’re looking at a scale of roughly 1 stud to 2
feet actual.(1) Lots of detail, angles, colors etc can change in two feet.
Which is actually part of the fun. I enjoy deciding what details can be
captured and which ones need to be left out. The other issue you have is that
even when you include a detail, it is sometimes out of scale with the rest of
the model. But... this is just LEGO and it’s just for fun, so I don’t worry
about it. You can see what I mean in the rear hand bar on Pumper 3:
http://www.bricksonthebrain.com/instructions/main.cfm?cat=45&review=654&revOn=true
It’s much too thick, as are the rigid hoses on the driver’s side. But it still
‘represents’ the detail.
Ladder 110 is also really meant to be my homage to this classic set:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/640_1 (2)
Which is why this truck (and all the vehicles in this series) isn’t done to
minifig scale. No need for oversized cabs or doors to fit figs, as it’s meant
to be a building style that doesn’t take into account a fig riding in the truck.
I even thought about including the 1x2 red brick with the LEGO logo right under
the cab window. I may yet render it with that in place. :)
| |
The instructions seem well thought out in terms of sequence of steps and
having the parts box at each step helps. I know (think?) this is a standard
lpub thing now, IIRC but it is nice.
|
It is an option which is selected by default. The way it works for me is that
it generates the construction image as one file and the parts list for that step
as a second file. All of those images were then manually combined into the
steps that I posted. If there’s a way to get LPub to do this automagically, I
can’t find it. :)
I personally think there are too many steps for a model this size. That’s
another thing I’m experimenting with. I’m hoping the next few will be a bit
more efficient.
| |
Stylistically though, I just can’t get excited about lightening previous
parts to show current step parts,
|
What you see is the default in LPub. I tried backing off that option, so that
previous step colors remain at full intensity, but it didn’t end up looking like
an official instruction book for some reason. I went back to the default only
because there would be little confusion over what the new pieces were. Except
of course when you use white pieces, as in the ladder, and then there is
confusion. I can’t win. :)
| |
or by the use of rendered parts without
strong edge lines.
|
Again I went with the default within LPub. (which is .5) What value would you
recommend?
| |
I like the more cartoonish instructions that Lego
themselves do, with big chunky edge lines. But that’s just me.
|
I totally agree. In fact that was something I told Will Hess about his recent
6-wide instructions. I do want to get to that cartoonish look. I guess I just
have to figure out what options/settings to lower in order to obtain that look,
without sacrificing quality.
I’ve found the learning curve (to produce both instructions and especially
renders) to be fairly steep. Maybe that’s just me. Normally I am very
comfortable with new software, but not in the case of the suite of programs
needed to produce these types of images. I wish there was a very basic
tutorial that walked you through producing those ‘cartoon’ type images, for
dummies like me who are computer literate, but not graphics literate.
That was why I mentioned the .CAD thread about lighting techniques. Everyone
offered such good advice, but it came from a half dozen different people and
none of it was information I’d been able to locate online or in any of the help
materials included with the apps.
O.K. I’m done griping now. ;)
Thanks for the input Larry! Sorry for the long rambling reply. And just think,
I haven’t even had my coffee yet this morning. :)
Regards,
Allan B.
(1) The scale fluctuates depending on the vehicle you’re working on. For a
newer piece of apparatus, like a Pierce 100 foot ladder for example, the scale
really is about 1 stud:2’. For older smaller rigs, like Pumper 3 for example,
the scale is more likely about 1 stud:20”. But again, it’s working within the
framework of 4-wide, so the differences are to be expected.
(2) The design of the truck in the 640 set was later used in my all-time
favorite official set http://guide.lugnet.com/set/357_1.
|
|
| |
> > I like the more cartoonish instructions that Lego
> > themselves do, with big chunky edge lines. But that's just me.
> I totally agree. In fact that was something I told Will Hess about his • recent
> 6-wide instructions. I do want to get to that cartoonish look. I guess I • just
> have to figure out what options/settings to lower in order to obtain that • look,
> without sacrificing quality.
Are you referring to the cover page renderings or the actual step
renderings?
Will
Bricksburg Fire Department: http://www.bricksburg.org
GoB Bricksburg Depot: http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=willhess
|
|
| |
In lugnet.inst, Will Hess wrote:
> > > I like the more cartoonish instructions that Lego
> > > themselves do, with big chunky edge lines. But that's just me.
>
> > I totally agree. In fact that was something I told Will Hess about his recent
> > 6-wide instructions. I do want to get to that cartoonish look. I guess I just
> > have to figure out what options/settings to lower in order to obtain that look,
> > without sacrificing quality.
>
> Are you referring to the cover page renderings or the actual step
> renderings?
I think I was thinking of the cover page renderings (the look and feel of which
I'm still trying to copy).
But in looking at them, and your step renderings, and my high-res and my step
renderings, I realize.... they're all different in some way.
I like the soft warm look of your cover page renderings. I guess that was the
'cartoon' look I was thinking of, though others might describe it differently.
They have a pleasant feel to them.
Your step renderings seem a bit different though. Were they processed through
LPub?
My high-res pics tend to look too dark and gloomy for me. While the detail is
o.k. and the colors are o.k. the model itself doesn't have the 'plastic' look to
it that your cover renderings have.
And my step pictures... well, I'm not thrilled with them, but they're getting
the point across I guess. If I could, wouldn't mind if they looked more like
the style used in official sets, but I need to do more experimenting to get that
look I think.
I guess in my ideal final version of a model, I'd like both my glam shot and my
instructions to look more or less like your cover shots. I was really impressed
by those and have set that look as my goal.
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
> Your step renderings seem a bit different though. Were they processed
> through LPub?
Nope. They're straight ML-Cad output using a "Line Width" of 3 and an
"Added parts view type" of Highlight. I save the pictures as 1600 x 1200
bitmaps and scale them down with an image editor.
> And my step pictures... well, I'm not thrilled with them, but they're
> getting the point across I guess. If I could, wouldn't mind if they • looked more
> like the style used in official sets, but I need to do more experimenting • to
> get that look I think.
Mega-POV can do that, but I'm not sure if it works well with POV-Ray 3.5.
The Tips and Techniques section on the Lugnet Building Instructions page
<http://news.lugnet.com/inst/> has some more info on this.
> I guess in my ideal final version of a model, I'd like both my glam shot
> and my instructions to look more or less like your cover shots. I was • really
> impressed by those and have set that look as my goal.
Check your e-mail :-)
Later,
Will
Bricksburg Fire Department: http://www.bricksburg.org
GoB Bricksburg Depot: http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=willhess
|
|
| |
In lugnet.inst, Allan Bedford wrote:
snip
| |
| |
The instructions seem well thought out in terms of sequence of steps and
having the parts box at each step helps. I know (think?) this is a standard
lpub thing now, IIRC but it is nice.
|
It is an option which is selected by default. The way it works for me is
that it generates the construction image as one file and the parts list for
that step as a second file. All of those images were then manually combined
into the steps that I posted. If there’s a way to get LPub to do this
automagically, I can’t find it. :)
|
LPub 2.2 adds another layer of processing after the two that you listed. The
new layer can do a few things for you:
1. Pack sub-model steps into a single “callout” image for use in making
compact building instructions.
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/kclague/mm-at-st/mm-at-sts004ci.jpg
2. Provide different color backdrops for different sub-model levels (that is
how the foot assembly in the above image has a yellow backdrop).
3. Pack the step number, the part list image for the step, the step assembly
image and any callout images all into the same image for you automatically.
Other than doing a lot of programming to add the new features, I didn’t have to
do any extra work to get the composite image shown above.
Combining all these features got me this single sheet building instructions for
one of my tiny bipeds with no manual editing.
I would wait for 2.2.0.1 though before upgrading to a new LPub. There are some
annoying bugs in 2.2.
| |
I personally think there are too many steps for a model this size. That’s
another thing I’m experimenting with. I’m hoping the next few will be a bit
more efficient.
| |
Stylistically though, I just can’t get excited about lightening previous
parts to show current step parts,
|
What you see is the default in LPub. I tried backing off that option, so
that previous step colors remain at full intensity, but it didn’t end up
looking like an official instruction book for some reason. I went back to
the default only because there would be little confusion over what the new
pieces were. Except of course when you use white pieces, as in the ladder,
and then there is confusion. I can’t win. :)
|
Larry’s expressed this opinion before, so I know it well.
You can choose some other color than white, or just mix a little white with the
brick color to give a similar but less drastic effect. See “Previous Parts
Color Scaling” scrollbar.
One of the things that makes LPub instructions look different than LEGOs is the
shading effects. I force shadows off, because that is just too weird in
instructions. Shading can make two faces that are the same color look a
different color based on the direction the light hits the face. Shinyness can
also have an effect. You can run POV-Ray with just ambient lighting to
eliminate these effects.
| |
| |
or by the use of rendered parts without
strong edge lines.
|
Again I went with the default within LPub. (which is .5) What value would
you recommend?
| |
I like the more cartoonish instructions that Lego
themselves do, with big chunky edge lines. But that’s just me.
|
I totally agree. In fact that was something I told Will Hess about his
recent 6-wide instructions. I do want to get to that cartoonish look. I
guess I just have to figure out what options/settings to lower in order to
obtain that look, without sacrificing quality.
I’ve found the learning curve (to produce both instructions and especially
renders) to be fairly steep. Maybe that’s just me. Normally I am very
comfortable with new software, but not in the case of the suite of programs
needed to produce these types of images. I wish there was a very basic
tutorial that walked you through producing those ‘cartoon’ type images, for
dummies like me who are computer literate, but not graphics literate.
|
I have two seperate emails from two different times from Ahui Harrera telling me
that LPub’s Mega-POV defaults were *wrong*. Each time I expained to him that by
definition they were right, because as the developer I get to decide what they
are.
If Mega-POV were better about its ability to accurately outline stuff, I’d
probably be willing to crank up the defaults to get darker wider lines, but in
my experience of creating proffessional quality building instructions for four
books, I found that Mega-POV was inconsistant. Mega-POV’s algorithm is a
heuristic which means it is not guaranteed to work perfectly all the time.
For this reason I chose to make the effect subtle, so the faults were also
subtle.
Another problem was that scale could change from sub-model to sub-model, yet the
thickness of Mega-POV’s lines was always the same. If you manually shrunk the
images with the larger bricks down the same size of bricks in larger sub-models,
then the line thickness changes.
LPub added “Minimum Camera Distance” to dramatically reduce this issue and
eliminate need for manual shrinkage.
| |
That was why I mentioned the .CAD thread about lighting techniques. Everyone
offered such good advice, but it came from a half dozen different people and
none of it was information I’d been able to locate online or in any of the
help materials included with the apps.
O.K. I’m done griping now. ;)
|
Don’t bite the hand that feeds you like Tim often does.
| |
Thanks for the input Larry! Sorry for the long rambling reply. And just
think, I haven’t even had my coffee yet this morning. :)
|
I like long ramblings when I have the time and patience.
Kevin
| |
Regards,
Allan B.
(1) The scale fluctuates depending on the vehicle you’re working on. For a
newer piece of apparatus, like a Pierce 100 foot ladder for example, the
scale really is about 1 stud:2’. For older smaller rigs, like Pumper 3 for
example, the scale is more likely about 1 stud:20”. But again, it’s working
within the framework of 4-wide, so the differences are to be expected.
(2) The design of the truck in the 640 set was later used in my all-time
favorite official set http://guide.lugnet.com/set/357_1.
|
|
|
| |
In lugnet.inst, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
| |
In lugnet.inst, Allan Bedford wrote:
snip
| |
| |
The instructions seem well thought out in terms of sequence of steps and
having the parts box at each step helps. I know (think?) this is a standard
lpub thing now, IIRC but it is nice.
|
It is an option which is selected by default. The way it works for me is
that it generates the construction image as one file and the parts list for
that step as a second file. All of those images were then manually combined
into the steps that I posted. If there’s a way to get LPub to do this
automagically, I can’t find it. :)
|
LPub 2.2 adds another layer of processing after the two that you listed. The
new layer can do a few things for you:
1. Pack sub-model steps into a single “callout” image for use in making
compact building instructions.
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/kclague/mm-at-st/mm-at-sts004ci.jpg
|
I don’t believe that LeoCAD does sub-models. I could be wrong, but I can’t
find any way to do it. For me, that’s o.k. since my models right now are small
and relatively simple.
However, I did notice something in your picture above. You have the parts list
for that step as part of the instruction image. Are you doing that manually?
Or is there an option in LPub that combines the two automagically? :)
| |
2. Provide different color backdrops for different sub-model levels (that
is how the foot assembly in the above image has a yellow backdrop).
|
I was going to play with different backgrounds for my main instruction images,
but haven’t had time yet.
| |
3. Pack the step number, the part list image for the step, the step
assembly image and any callout images all into the same image for you
automatically. Other than doing a lot of programming to add the new features,
I didn’t have to do any extra work to get the composite image shown above.
|
See question above. I can’t figure out how that’s being done.
| |
Combining all these features got me this single sheet building instructions
for one of my tiny bipeds with no manual editing.
|
No image editing at all? So again, there must be an option I’m missing, that
inserts the BOM into each step image.
| |
I would wait for 2.2.0.1 though before upgrading to a new LPub. There are
some annoying bugs in 2.2.
|
I guess I didn’t realize that 2.2 was a bit buggy. When I went looking for the
suite of apps to start doing instructions I just downloaded the latest greatest
of each one. Which is how I got POV-Ray 3.5, which I have since found out isn’t
best friends with LPub. :(
| |
| |
I personally think there are too many steps for a model this size. That’s
another thing I’m experimenting with. I’m hoping the next few will be a bit
more efficient.
| |
Stylistically though, I just can’t get excited about lightening previous
parts to show current step parts,
|
What you see is the default in LPub. I tried backing off that option, so
that previous step colors remain at full intensity, but it didn’t end up
looking like an official instruction book for some reason. I went back to
the default only because there would be little confusion over what the new
pieces were. Except of course when you use white pieces, as in the ladder,
and then there is confusion. I can’t win. :)
|
Larry’s expressed this opinion before, so I know it well.
You can choose some other color than white, or just mix a little white with
the brick color to give a similar but less drastic effect. See “Previous
Parts Color Scaling” scrollbar.
|
I’m completely split on this issue. I think, for me, it will be a decision I’ll
make on a model by model basis. I did use the technique you describe above when
I did the instructions for a small train station recently. It worked fairly
well, though I may have pushed the scrollbar a bit far. Some of the previous
steps ended up dithering the existing bricks a bit much.
| |
| |
| |
or by the use of rendered parts without
strong edge lines.
|
Again I went with the default within LPub. (which is .5) What value would
you recommend?
| |
I like the more cartoonish instructions that Lego
themselves do, with big chunky edge lines. But that’s just me.
|
I totally agree. In fact that was something I told Will Hess about his
recent 6-wide instructions. I do want to get to that cartoonish look. I
guess I just have to figure out what options/settings to lower in order to
obtain that look, without sacrificing quality.
I’ve found the learning curve (to produce both instructions and especially
renders) to be fairly steep. Maybe that’s just me. Normally I am very
comfortable with new software, but not in the case of the suite of programs
needed to produce these types of images. I wish there was a very basic
tutorial that walked you through producing those ‘cartoon’ type images, for
dummies like me who are computer literate, but not graphics literate.
|
I have two seperate emails from two different times from Ahui Harrera telling
me that LPub’s Mega-POV defaults were *wrong*. Each time I expained to him
that by definition they were right, because as the developer I get to decide
what they are.
|
I can’t comment on Mega-POV as I don’t even have it installed. I wanted to make
sure I was comfortable with the core software before adding yet another variable
into the mix.
| |
LPub added “Minimum Camera Distance” to dramatically reduce this issue and
eliminate need for manual shrinkage.
|
You have Minimum Distance on both the STEPS and the PARTS IMAGES tabs, under
BUILDING INSTRUCTIONS. Is there some quick way to describe the difference? I
typically am only changing the STEPS distance (usually lowering it from the
default) in order to have my models fill the screen more.
| |
| |
That was why I mentioned the .CAD thread about lighting techniques.
Everyone offered such good advice, but it came from a half dozen different
people and none of it was information I’d been able to locate online or in
any of the help materials included with the apps.
O.K. I’m done griping now. ;)
|
Don’t bite the hand that feeds you like Tim often does.
|
I definitely wasn’t trying to do that. I was trying to walk that fine line
between asking for help and expressing my thoughts about certain aspects of the
software (not just yours) that I found confusing. Please believe me when I say
that I appreciate and respect what all these apps do in combination with each
other. I love that I can produce instructions for LEGO models.
If I were to offer a gentle suggestion... it might be that some of the
documentation that accompanies these programs could be geared more to LEGO
builders, rather than graphics junkies. For example: I knew zero about an app
like POV-Ray before I started using it. I now know 1.73625 % of all there is to
know about it. In other words, I’m still a graphics idiot. But I find their
documentation to be heavily slanted towards folks who are very graphics savy.
Now, POV isn’t a LEGO program... of course. So why should LEGO be in their
documentation? It shouldn’t. But what I find hard to grasp sometimes is that
people might offer the suggestion to “read the POV-Ray help files and you’ll
find your answer.” Which normally I would agree with, but because their
documentation is so thick with graphics terminology I don’t understand, it’s of
little help. I have always used this example when describing that type of
documentation. It’s as though they are saying:
“A shovel is a tool used to shovel.”
It’s a very accurate statement, but not very helpful if it’s the shovel that
you’re trying to understand. In the case of ray tracing, it’s the shovel part
that I don’t understand and that’s why I get frustrated with their docs.
All that said, I have found some wonderful suggestions being offered by the
LUGNET gang. Surprise? No, this is what I would have expected. But again, I
sometimes found it hard to even understand the question I wanted to ask.
Luckily, thanks to lighting and other tips provided by people here, I’m at the
stage where I think I can do most of what I want to do with this software.
I suspect what I’ll do for myself at some point is go back through the threads
where I’ve asked these questions and gotten help and then put all of it into a
‘tips, tricks and just plain good advice’ document, so that I can have all of
this knowledge handy. (1)
| |
| |
Thanks for the input Larry! Sorry for the long rambling reply. And just
think, I haven’t even had my coffee yet this morning. :)
|
I like long ramblings when I have the time and patience.
|
Me too. :)
But again I have done this today without yet having had my coffee. Weird.
Thanks Kevin, for all your hard work and for providing this key piece of
software.
Best regards,
Allan B.
(1) Keeping in mind that I had a strong communications/writing background
before I got into programming. I happen to be a guy who likes to write code
and documentation. I know that’s not the norm, but then when have I ever been
considered the norm? ;)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.inst, Allan Bedford wrote:
snip
| |
However, I did notice something in your picture above. You have the parts
list for that step as part of the instruction image. Are you doing that
manually? Or is there an option in LPub that combines the two automagically?
:)
|
I’m not at my LPub computer right now, so I can’t tell you, but it is a *menu*
item just below the one you use to generate images.
| |
| |
2. Provide different color backdrops for different sub-model levels (that
is how the foot assembly in the above image has a yellow backdrop).
|
I was going to play with different backgrounds for my main instruction
images, but haven’t had time yet.
| |
3. Pack the step number, the part list image for the step, the step
assembly image and any callout images all into the same image for you
automatically. Other than doing a lot of programming to add the new
features, I didn’t have to do any extra work to get the composite image
shown above.
|
See question above. I can’t figure out how that’s being done.
|
In the extra procesing step via the extra menu I just mentioned.
| |
| |
Combining all these features got me this single sheet building instructions
for one of my tiny bipeds with no manual editing.
|
No image editing at all? So again, there must be an option I’m missing, that
inserts the BOM into each step image.
|
Actually in the image above you are seeing a Part List Image.
| |
| |
I would wait for 2.2.0.1 though before upgrading to a new LPub. There are
some annoying bugs in 2.2.
|
I guess I didn’t realize that 2.2 was a bit buggy. When I went looking for
the suite of apps to start doing instructions I just downloaded the latest
greatest of each one. Which is how I got POV-Ray 3.5, which I have since
found out isn’t best friends with LPub. :(
|
Since you don’t use sub-models you avoid the first bug. If you are not having
trouble then you are avoiding the other known bug.
| |
| |
| |
I personally think there are too many steps for a model this size. That’s
another thing I’m experimenting with. I’m hoping the next few will be a
bit more efficient.
| |
Stylistically though, I just can’t get excited about lightening previous
parts to show current step parts,
|
What you see is the default in LPub. I tried backing off that option, so
that previous step colors remain at full intensity, but it didn’t end up
looking like an official instruction book for some reason. I went back to
the default only because there would be little confusion over what the new
pieces were. Except of course when you use white pieces, as in the ladder,
and then there is confusion. I can’t win. :)
|
Larry’s expressed this opinion before, so I know it well.
You can choose some other color than white, or just mix a little white with
the brick color to give a similar but less drastic effect. See “Previous
Parts Color Scaling” scrollbar.
|
I’m completely split on this issue. I think, for me, it will be a decision
I’ll make on a model by model basis. I did use the technique you describe
above when I did the instructions for a small train station recently. It
worked fairly well, though I may have pushed the scrollbar a bit far. Some
of the previous steps ended up dithering the existing bricks a bit much.
| |
| |
| |
or by the use of rendered parts without
strong edge lines.
|
Again I went with the default within LPub. (which is .5) What value would
you recommend?
| |
I like the more cartoonish instructions that Lego
themselves do, with big chunky edge lines. But that’s just me.
|
I totally agree. In fact that was something I told Will Hess about his
recent 6-wide instructions. I do want to get to that cartoonish look. I
guess I just have to figure out what options/settings to lower in order to
obtain that look, without sacrificing quality.
I’ve found the learning curve (to produce both instructions and especially
renders) to be fairly steep. Maybe that’s just me. Normally I am very
comfortable with new software, but not in the case of the suite of programs
needed to produce these types of images. I wish there was a very basic
tutorial that walked you through producing those ‘cartoon’ type images, for
dummies like me who are computer literate, but not graphics literate.
|
I have two seperate emails from two different times from Ahui Harrera
telling me that LPub’s Mega-POV defaults were *wrong*. Each time I expained
to him that by definition they were right, because as the developer I get to
decide what they are.
|
I can’t comment on Mega-POV as I don’t even have it installed. I wanted to
make sure I was comfortable with the core software before adding yet another
variable into the mix.
| |
LPub added “Minimum Camera Distance” to dramatically reduce this issue and
eliminate need for manual shrinkage.
|
You have Minimum Distance on both the STEPS and the PARTS IMAGES tabs, under
BUILDING INSTRUCTIONS. Is there some quick way to describe the difference?
I typically am only changing the STEPS distance (usually lowering it from the
default) in order to have my models fill the screen more.
|
The STEPS one is the one you are changing and it affect the first image
generation phase: construction images.
The PARTS IMAGES one controls the rendering of individual part images that are
then composited together to make Part List Images (PLIs) and BOMs.
| |
| |
| |
That was why I mentioned the .CAD thread about lighting techniques.
Everyone offered such good advice, but it came from a half dozen different
people and none of it was information I’d been able to locate online or in
any of the help materials included with the apps.
O.K. I’m done griping now. ;)
|
Don’t bite the hand that feeds you like Tim often does.
|
I definitely wasn’t trying to do that. I was trying to walk that fine line
between asking for help and expressing my thoughts about certain aspects of
the software (not just yours) that I found confusing. Please believe me when
I say that I appreciate and respect what all these apps do in combination
with each other. I love that I can produce instructions for LEGO models.
|
I know you weren’t. The emphasis there was on the Tim part (he and I have to
talk at BrickFest).
| |
If I were to offer a gentle suggestion... it might be that some of the
documentation that accompanies these programs could be geared more to LEGO
builders, rather than graphics junkies. For example: I knew zero about an app
like POV-Ray before I started using it. I now know 1.73625 % of all there is
to know about it. In other words, I’m still a graphics idiot. But I find
their documentation to be heavily slanted towards folks who are very graphics
savy.
|
I might recommend a book “LEGO Software Power Tools” (shameless plug) that does
this. It talks about MLCad, LSynth, L3P, POV-Ray, LPub.... The POV-Ray part is
pretty thin.
| |
Now, POV isn’t a LEGO program... of course. So why should LEGO be in their
documentation? It shouldn’t. But what I find hard to grasp sometimes is
that people might offer the suggestion to “read the POV-Ray help files and
you’ll find your answer.” Which normally I would agree with, but because
their documentation is so thick with graphics terminology I don’t understand,
it’s of little help. I have always used this example when describing that
type of documentation. It’s as though they are saying:
“A shovel is a tool used to shovel.”
It’s a very accurate statement, but not very helpful if it’s the shovel that
you’re trying to understand. In the case of ray tracing, it’s the shovel
part that I don’t understand and that’s why I get frustrated with their docs.
|
I hear ya. Maybe it’s one of those “I suffered through it, you should too” kind
of deals. I’ve had to slog my way through some of that stuff, and I know a fair
amount about computer graphics and I get overwhelmed.
| |
All that said, I have found some wonderful suggestions being offered by the
LUGNET gang. Surprise? No, this is what I would have expected. But again,
I sometimes found it hard to even understand the question I wanted to ask.
Luckily, thanks to lighting and other tips provided by people here, I’m at
the stage where I think I can do most of what I want to do with this
software.
|
Sometimes it can be a *lot* of work trying to translate something like POV
documentation into English that can be read by mere mortals ;^) I know this
after having co-authored in a few books. I like my editors, but computer saavy
they are not, much less technical about LEGO. Getting so they could understand
it was a tiresome, but neccessary effort.
| |
I suspect what I’ll do for myself at some point is go back through the
threads where I’ve asked these questions and gotten help and then put all of
it into a ‘tips, tricks and just plain good advice’ document, so that I can
have all of this knowledge handy. (1)
| |
| |
Thanks for the input Larry! Sorry for the long rambling reply. And just
think, I haven’t even had my coffee yet this morning. :)
|
I like long ramblings when I have the time and patience.
|
Me too. :)
But again I have done this today without yet having had my coffee. Weird.
Thanks Kevin, for all your hard work and for providing this key piece of
software.
|
You are welcome.
| |
Best regards,
Allan B.
(1) Keeping in mind that I had a strong communications/writing background
before I got into programming. I happen to be a guy who likes to write code
and documentation. I know that’s not the norm, but then when have I ever
been considered the norm? ;)
|
Kevin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.inst, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
| |
In lugnet.inst, Allan Bedford wrote:
snip
| |
However, I did notice something in your picture above. You have the parts
list for that step as part of the instruction image. Are you doing that
manually? Or is there an option in LPub that combines the two automagically?
:)
|
I’m not at my LPub computer right now, so I can’t tell you, but it is a
*menu* item just below the one you use to generate images.
|
LAYOUTS is the menu item.
And yes, it does work! I’m guessing it didn’t work for me earlier, because it
needs the parts and the step .jpg’s already created... is that right? And my
guess is that I tried using it as a first step, not a second process. Or.... I
just screwed it up somehow. :)
I was able to create a nice set of instructions last night, and then ran the
LAYOUTS command, which worked very well.
I’m curious to know why LPub sends two versions of the full model to POV-Ray.
One “full size” and one much smaller, using c as part of the file name.
Also, am I crazy or does LPub sometimes create the pieces for the BOM first and
other times it creates the step images first? To be honest, I try so many
configurations and variations that I sometimes loose track of what setting did
what to which program. But even last night, I’m sure I saw this behaviour. :)
| |
| |
| |
Larry’s expressed this opinion before, so I know it well.
You can choose some other color than white, or just mix a little white with
the brick color to give a similar but less drastic effect. See “Previous
Parts Color Scaling” scrollbar.
|
I’m completely split on this issue. I think, for me, it will be a decision
I’ll make on a model by model basis. I did use the technique you describe
above when I did the instructions for a small train station recently. It
worked fairly well, though I may have pushed the scrollbar a bit far. Some
of the previous steps ended up dithering the existing bricks a bit much.
|
|
For the instructions I did last night, I pushed the scroll bar all the way to
the left. The model is mostly yellow and light grey, and having the previous
bricks at full intensity worked very well. I’m quite pleased with the results.
| |
| |
| |
LPub added “Minimum Camera Distance” to dramatically reduce this issue and
eliminate need for manual shrinkage.
|
You have Minimum Distance on both the STEPS and the PARTS IMAGES tabs, under
BUILDING INSTRUCTIONS. Is there some quick way to describe the difference?
I typically am only changing the STEPS distance (usually lowering it from
the default) in order to have my models fill the screen more.
|
The STEPS one is the one you are changing and it affect the first image
generation phase: construction images.
The PARTS IMAGES one controls the rendering of individual part images that
are then composited together to make Part List Images (PLIs) and BOMs.
|
Is there a benefit to changing this number from its default of 3000? I think
the BOM’s come out great... with a reasonable quality at a very economical .jpg
size.
| |
| |
If I were to offer a gentle suggestion... it might be that some of the
documentation that accompanies these programs could be geared more to LEGO
builders, rather than graphics junkies. For example: I knew zero about an
app like POV-Ray before I started using it. I now know 1.73625 % of all
there is to know about it. In other words, I’m still a graphics idiot. But
I find their documentation to be heavily slanted towards folks who are very
graphics savy.
|
I might recommend a book “LEGO Software Power Tools” (shameless plug) that
does this. It talks about MLCad, LSynth, L3P, POV-Ray, LPub.... The POV-Ray
part is pretty thin.
|
Nothing wrong with a shameless plug... look at what started this thread. :)
| |
| |
Now, POV isn’t a LEGO program... of course. So why should LEGO be in their
documentation? It shouldn’t. But what I find hard to grasp sometimes is
that people might offer the suggestion to “read the POV-Ray help files and
you’ll find your answer.” Which normally I would agree with, but because
their documentation is so thick with graphics terminology I don’t
understand, it’s of little help. I have always used this example when
describing that type of documentation. It’s as though they are saying:
“A shovel is a tool used to shovel.”
It’s a very accurate statement, but not very helpful if it’s the shovel that
you’re trying to understand. In the case of ray tracing, it’s the shovel
part that I don’t understand and that’s why I get frustrated with their
docs.
|
I hear ya. Maybe it’s one of those “I suffered through it, you should too”
kind of deals. I’ve had to slog my way through some of that stuff, and I
know a fair amount about computer graphics and I get overwhelmed.
|
Your last comment makes me feel better. :)
| |
| |
All that said, I have found some wonderful suggestions being offered by the
LUGNET gang. Surprise? No, this is what I would have expected. But again,
I sometimes found it hard to even understand the question I wanted to ask.
Luckily, thanks to lighting and other tips provided by people here, I’m at
the stage where I think I can do most of what I want to do with this
software.
|
Sometimes it can be a *lot* of work trying to translate something like POV
documentation into English that can be read by mere mortals ;^) I know this
after having co-authored in a few books. I like my editors, but computer
saavy they are not, much less technical about LEGO. Getting so they could
understand it was a tiresome, but neccessary effort.
|
I can appreciate that. Part of my job is sometimes writing about technical
issues, but for a non-technical (i.e. management) type audience. I actually
don’t mind it, but it can be tedious to make sure you’ve over-explained
everything.
One comment to go back to something earlier in the thread:
I mentioned that I couldn’t find a way to rotate the entire model in LeoCAD.
Well, it’s not that hard. I do a SELECT ALL from the EDIT menu to make sure I’m
affecting the entire model. Then I just used SHIFT + PAGE UP (or DOWN) to
rotate the model in space, leaving the camera as is. Since the options allow
you to set your rotation amount in degrees, you can point the model any way you
want. I’d used this function for single pieces before, but hadn’t for some
reason thought it could work on the entire model. It does. :)
All the best,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.inst, Allan Bedford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.inst, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
| |
In lugnet.inst, Allan Bedford wrote:
snip
| |
However, I did notice something in your picture above. You have the parts
list for that step as part of the instruction image. Are you doing that
manually? Or is there an option in LPub that combines the two
automagically? :)
|
I’m not at my LPub computer right now, so I can’t tell you, but it is a
*menu* item just below the one you use to generate images.
|
LAYOUTS is the menu item.
And yes, it does work! I’m guessing it didn’t work for me earlier, because
it needs the parts and the step .jpg’s already created... is that right? And
my guess is that I tried using it as a first step, not a second process.
Or.... I just screwed it up somehow. :)
|
Layout can’t do anything unless you’ve generated everything.
| |
I was able to create a nice set of instructions last night, and then ran the
LAYOUTS command, which worked very well.
I’m curious to know why LPub sends two versions of the full model to POV-Ray.
One “full size” and one much smaller, using c as part of the file name.
|
This is related to sub-model usage. LPub uses a depth first search algorithm
for processing sub-models. So it looks for all the sub-models in a model and
creates their construction images’ before creating the top level model’s.
Same is true during the Part List Image phase. When LPub creates PLIs for the
top level model, it uses the small image of the sub-model as a part image for
that model.
| |
Also, am I crazy or does LPub sometimes create the pieces for the BOM first
and other times it creates the step images first? To be honest, I try so
many configurations and variations that I sometimes loose track of what
setting did what to which program. But even last night, I’m sure I saw this
behaviour. :)
|
It always creates the construction images first, then the part images and part
list images, then the BOM.
| |
For the instructions I did last night, I pushed the scroll bar all the way to
the left. The model is mostly yellow and light grey, and having the previous
bricks at full intensity worked very well. I’m quite pleased with the
results.
|
That is why there is a scroll bar. You can select one extreme or the other,
orany place in between.
| |
Is there a benefit to changing this number from its default of 3000? I think
the BOM’s come out great... with a reasonable quality at a very economical
.jpg size.
|
If the scale works well for you, great! I made a lot of things optional,
because others might find better settings than I have, or have preferences that
are different than mine.
| |
| |
| |
If I were to offer a gentle suggestion... it might be that some of the
documentation that accompanies these programs could be geared more to LEGO
builders, rather than graphics junkies. For example: I knew zero about an
app like POV-Ray before I started using it. I now know 1.73625 % of all
there is to know about it. In other words, I’m still a graphics idiot.
But I find their documentation to be heavily slanted towards folks who are
very graphics savy.
|
I might recommend a book “LEGO Software Power Tools” (shameless plug) that
does this. It talks about MLCad, LSynth, L3P, POV-Ray, LPub.... The
POV-Ray part is pretty thin.
|
Nothing wrong with a shameless plug... look at what started this thread. :)
| |
| |
Now, POV isn’t a LEGO program... of course. So why should LEGO be in their
documentation? It shouldn’t. But what I find hard to grasp sometimes is
that people might offer the suggestion to “read the POV-Ray help files and
you’ll find your answer.” Which normally I would agree with, but because
their documentation is so thick with graphics terminology I don’t
understand, it’s of little help. I have always used this example when
describing that type of documentation. It’s as though they are saying:
“A shovel is a tool used to shovel.”
It’s a very accurate statement, but not very helpful if it’s the shovel
that you’re trying to understand. In the case of ray tracing, it’s the
shovel part that I don’t understand and that’s why I get frustrated with
their docs.
|
I hear ya. Maybe it’s one of those “I suffered through it, you should too”
kind of deals. I’ve had to slog my way through some of that stuff, and I
know a fair amount about computer graphics and I get overwhelmed.
|
Your last comment makes me feel better. :)
|
;^) When I’m immersed technically in things I tend to think in layers and take
the lowest level layers as givens and as single concepts. If you flatten
it all out it just makes things hard to comprehend. Taking each and every
layer and explaining it in excruciating detail is laborious and *boring*
:^)
snip
| |
| |
Sometimes it can be a *lot* of work trying to translate something like POV
documentation into English that can be read by mere mortals ;^) I know this
after having co-authored in a few books. I like my editors, but computer
saavy they are not, much less technical about LEGO. Getting so they could
understand it was a tiresome, but neccessary effort.
|
I can appreciate that. Part of my job is sometimes writing about technical
issues, but for a non-technical (i.e. management) type audience. I actually
don’t mind it, but it can be tedious to make sure you’ve over-explained
everything.
|
Yup, and then it is extra annoying if they can’t even get that version...
Fortunatly in my profession most of the managerial types I work with are
technical.
| |
One comment to go back to something earlier in the thread:
I mentioned that I couldn’t find a way to rotate the entire model in LeoCAD.
Well, it’s not that hard. I do a SELECT ALL from the EDIT menu to make sure
I’m affecting the entire model. Then I just used SHIFT + PAGE UP (or DOWN)
to rotate the model in space, leaving the camera as is. Since the options
allow you to set your rotation amount in degrees, you can point the model any
way you want. I’d used this function for single pieces before, but hadn’t
for some reason thought it could work on the entire model. It does. :)
|
Also you mentioned that LeoCAD doesn’t support sub-models. I’d guess that you
just don’t know how to do it.
I’d guess that you can create a DAT file that has your ladder in it as a file
and write it out. Then you can create the top-level model and add the ladder as
a part. In the LDraw file format a model, sub-model and part library parts all
use exactly the same file format. If you can add a library part you might be
able to add a custom part (i.e. sub-model).
Kevin
|
|
|
