 | | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) I would choose LDView over POV-Ray and L3P in an instant if the -SaveAlpha option worked on my Mac. Otherwise, I think your conclusions about the appearance settings are correct. LDView renderings like your example look great. Would it make (...) (17 years ago, 9-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
--snip-- (...) --snip-- (...) Is it that they prefer POV-Ray or that they don't have/aren't aware that the latest versions of LPub can use LDView? Although I consider myself quite a dab hand at POV-Ray I would never use it for instructions now that (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) In my opinion, both images are unusable for instructions. Prefering legibility over realism (though a bit of "realism" is still needed to even recognize the shapes), I put down some universal rules for creating instructions of virtually any (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) This is one of the main reasons I posted asking for opinions. I think I can fix this, but I know that fixing it is going to be a lot of work. There's no point bothering if people aren't going to like the results. (...) That can be fixed (with (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) That isn't a silly question at all, really. In fact, it may be more important than all the flaws that have been pointed out. Based on the comments here, there seems to be a general consensus about a few things regarding "high-quality (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) On my monitor, version 1 certainly looks cleaner and sharper. I will be interested to see how you accomplished this. It might get me back into creating instructions again, which is something I have stopped doing because I was getting so (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) I've found that getting rid of the transparent colors' refraction characteristics makes for a much clearer rendering, too: (URL) no refraction>> Jim (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) Unless Travis is explicitly setting it, I think POV-Ray defaults to 2.2. -Orion (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Bug when copying a group [DAT]
|
|
hi all, today I played around with the group feature and found out that MLCad "ungroups" a Group when you try to copy'n'paste a Group withing the file. furthermore the order in the .ldr looks kind of weird though it is sorted fine in the parts list (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) Good point. I think the official instructions are harder to follow now with the fancy rendering. Sometimes you can't tell one color from another, especially black, white, and the various shades of gray. I can barely tell the white bricks from (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) For me, the keypoint here is "for instructions". Anything that remove legibility to the image should be avoided. In both versions conditional lines are not rendered. Not a huge problem here, could become one on models with many rounded (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
I'm working on a different rendering method (for instructions) using POV-Ray, and I wanted to get some opinions about the output. On that note, I have two sample renderings in two different sizes, and I'd like to get people's feedback. Note that I'm (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts vs subparts for compound parts
|
|
(...) "A part I can buy" is not how we determine where to place a file. Since x322 represents a solid piece that a modeler may need to interact with directly (that is, give it a color). Looking at the files involved, the file locations and (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts vs subparts for compound parts
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) For to solve the hold vote on this part, I think, that the current x322.dat should go into the s/ folder because this is not a PART that I can buy. So the file with the metal portion should be instead x322.dat and with the light (...) (17 years ago, 7-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Why LDraw.org doesn't use ldconfig.ldr ???
|
|
(...) To me also. I meant to respond, but my verification email address was down temporarily when the original message was posted, and I forgot to respond later. --Travis (17 years ago, 7-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad)
|
