 | | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) Just for comparison, I rendered your model using the same technique as mine: (URL) m6459>> Transparent parts definitely seem to be a challenge. Jim (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) For instructions I'd definitely choose Version 1, for nice pictures Version 2 minus the hard, black edges and a little less shiny. As the other's have said: - too dark in the black. Actually, to me the whole picture is too dark - which monitor (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) - The shadows in version 2 cause color confusion. This is the most glaring example but it is repeated thoughout the rendering: the 1x2 grille piece is white in version 1 but looks grey in version 2. - No conditional lines rendered in both. - (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) I agree with Philo that the shadows are distracting. I don't think the stud logos are necessary, either. On the other hand, I think the transparent parts in the first rendering look a little too dark. There's also a grainy texture under some (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts vs subparts for compound parts
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Niels Karsdorp wrote: (I've > read that there's a major update on classic windows in the pipeline.) (...) Yes, see (URL) This shows how I decided to organise these files a while back. The CA header conversion is nearing (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
