 | | | | | | |
| |
|
hi folks,
have a look at the "beta-version" of the part I'm currently working on and tell me what do you think. any suggestions and critical
statements are welcome, but please consider that some areas still need a lot of refinement. especially the two ends have to be
remade from scratch. it particularly interests me if the definition of the mesh is high enough.
http://space.tin.it/io/wtschage/craters_1.jpg (39 KB) - render
http://space.tin.it/io/wtschage/craters_2.jpg (55 KB) - render
http://space.tin.it/io/wtschage/craters_3.jpg (51 KB) - render
http://space.tin.it/io/wtschage/craters_4.jpg (50 KB) - render
http://space.tin.it/io/wtschage/craters_5.jpg (25 KB) - render
http://space.tin.it/io/wtschage/craters_6.gif (33 KB) - mesh
the middle-section is almost finished. there is to do little work at the top-layer and the joints where the "hills" meet the rest of
the body. but if you feel that I have to put more attention on certain areas don't hesitate to send jpgs with the zone circled in
red. you also won't see any quads 'cos my cad-program doesn't support them, but most of the triangles will be substitute by
quadrilaterals in the final version.
another critical point is the bottom of the baseplate. to keep the file at a reasonable size I would prefer a closed version, where
the bottom doesn't mirror the top. someone could argument that the bottom in the original lego® part reassembles the profile of the
hill but even a rough mesh would result in some 1000 to 2000 triangles (well, how much MB ram does your computer have? ;-)
bye, willy
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Willy Tschager writes:
> hi folks,
>
>
> have a look at the "beta-version" of the part I'm currently working on and >tell me what do you think.
I like it, very nice work.
> another critical point is the bottom of the baseplate. to keep the file at a >reasonable size I would prefer a closed version, where
> the bottom doesn't mirror the top. someone could argument that the bottom in >the original lego® part reassembles the profile of the
> hill but even a rough mesh would result in some 1000 to 2000 triangles
> (well, how much MB ram does your computer have? ;-)
I think a closed bottom will work as I don't see a functional reason to have
it not be (plus the save in file size will be good).
-Orion
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Willy Tschager writes:
> hi folks,
>
>
> have a look at the "beta-version" of the part I'm currently working on and tell me what do you think. any suggestions and critical
> statements are welcome, but please consider that some areas still need a lot of refinement. especially the two ends have to be
> remade from scratch. it particularly interests me if the definition of the mesh is high enough.
>
> http://space.tin.it/io/wtschage/craters_1.jpg (39 KB) - render
> http://space.tin.it/io/wtschage/craters_2.jpg (55 KB) - render
> http://space.tin.it/io/wtschage/craters_3.jpg (51 KB) - render
> http://space.tin.it/io/wtschage/craters_4.jpg (50 KB) - render
> http://space.tin.it/io/wtschage/craters_5.jpg (25 KB) - render
> http://space.tin.it/io/wtschage/craters_6.gif (33 KB) - mesh
>
> the middle-section is almost finished. there is to do little work at the top-layer and the joints where the "hills" meet the rest of
> the body. but if you feel that I have to put more attention on certain areas don't hesitate to send jpgs with the zone circled in
> red. you also won't see any quads 'cos my cad-program doesn't support them, but most of the triangles will be substitute by
> quadrilaterals in the final version.
>
> another critical point is the bottom of the baseplate. to keep the file at a reasonable size I would prefer a closed version, where
> the bottom doesn't mirror the top. someone could argument that the bottom in the original lego® part reassembles the profile of the
> hill but even a rough mesh would result in some 1000 to 2000 triangles (well, how much MB ram does your computer have? ;-)
>
>
> bye, willy
Hi Willy,
Wow, I am positively impressed.
The helmet, and now the crater plate: you are a significant classic space
contributor.
Save time and effort: a flat bottom is ok for me.
Congratulation,
Damien
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Oh, my! Most impressive. :-D
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Willy Tschager wrote:
> have a look at the "beta-version" of the part I'm currently working on and tell me what do you think. any suggestions and critical
> statements are welcome, but please consider that some areas still need a lot of refinement. especially the two ends have to be
> remade from scratch. it particularly interests me if the definition of the mesh is high enough.
>
> http://space.tin.it/io/wtschage/craters_1.jpg (39 KB) - render
> http://space.tin.it/io/wtschage/craters_2.jpg (55 KB) - render
> http://space.tin.it/io/wtschage/craters_3.jpg (51 KB) - render
> http://space.tin.it/io/wtschage/craters_4.jpg (50 KB) - render
> http://space.tin.it/io/wtschage/craters_5.jpg (25 KB) - render
> http://space.tin.it/io/wtschage/craters_6.gif (33 KB) - mesh
Wow! I think you've definitely got sufficient detail there.
> another critical point is the bottom of the baseplate. to keep the file at a reasonable size I would prefer a closed version, where
> the bottom doesn't mirror the top. someone could argument that the bottom in the original lego® part reassembles the profile of the
> hill but even a rough mesh would result in some 1000 to 2000 triangles (well, how much MB ram does your computer have? ;-)
If you include a comment in the part file, indicating that the bottom is
modeled as a flat surface to reduce the size/complexity of the part, I
think that would be alright.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Willy Tschager writes:
> you also won't see any quads 'cos my cad-program doesn't support them, but most of the triangles will be substitute by
> quadrilaterals in the final version.
> bye, willy
Hi Willy,
Your part looks very good, it is amazingly detailed.
My only comment is that in the case of a complex freeform shape like this
hill, there are few chance to find neighbouring and coplanar triangles that
can be substituted by one coplanar quad. (If I remember well, it is not
legal in Ldraw to use non-coplanar quads.) The homogenius all-triangle mesh
is better. Please consider this if you plan to reduce the filesize. (Just an
example to compare with, the 2610.dat Minifig Lifevest is very small in
dimensions but 116K filesize)
BTW I'd like to know what Cad software did you use, and how did you capture
or digitize this very complex shape. Could you give us a brief description
of your method.
Thanks in advance
Ampi
----------------------------------------
Imre Papp
Geometria GIS Systems House
email: ipapp@geometria.hu
web: www.geometria.hu
----------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
hi ampi,
sorry for the late reply but I was abroad for a few days.
> My only comment is that in the case of a complex freeform shape like this
> hill, there are few chance to find neighbouring and coplanar triangles that
> can be substituted by one coplanar quad. (If I remember well, it is not
> legal in Ldraw to use non-coplanar quads.) The homogenius all-triangle mesh
> is better. Please consider this if you plan to reduce the filesize. (Just an
> example to compare with, the 2610.dat Minifig Lifevest is very small in
> dimensions but 116K filesize)
hmm... thanks for the hint. I started doing part-authoring just a few months ago and I'm not very familiar with all the
ldraw-specifications.
> BTW I'd like to know what Cad software did you use
I use Reflections 4.3. initially it was written for amiga (back in 1990) and later adapted to the redmond crap. the version I use
was released in 1996 (sic!). it's not up to date, it's not sophisticated, it only supports its own file-format and dxf (therefor I
have to do a lot of conversion to get out a dat-file) but it's just perfect for simple objects like Ldraw-parts. when I started
doing part-authoring earlier this year I wasn't in the mood of spending month or even years to get into one of these million dollar
programs (beside the waste of money - is somebody out there who uses 3D max, lightwave, or alias to design its parts?) it took me
two days to remember all the commands and functions I had learned in 1996 and the software didn't cost me a penny (okay, I spent
$190 when I bought it in 1996).
> and how did you capture or digitize this very complex shape. Could you give
> us a brief description of your method.
capture ... digitize ;-) are you talking about a 3D scanner or things like this. no way. it's simple handcraft. I am not a cad-guru
and not very skilled :'-(. have a look at a map and its altitude lines and you will understand the process:
1.. take a pencil and draw lines around your model. the distance in height is the height of a plate (sorry about my poor english.
I hope you get it at least.)
2.. take a picture from above. use a long lens (120 mm or longer) to eliminate any perspective distortion. (take also pictures
from the sides to check the final shape in the sideviews).
3.. scan it (yes, I used an old-fashion camera, due to the poor resolution of my digicam). the scan was 6000 x 4000 pixel.
4.. use a software like illustrator, freehand to get paths of the altitude lines and convert it to dxf, 3ds, lwo ... or import the
picture into your cad software if it can handle it an make polygons, splines .... don't waste time and effort to make a smooth path,
just use straight lines. a rough path or polygon will do the job. I used a grid of 56 point (the crater hill is 28 studs long - I
divided the distance between studs and layers by 2 to get more detail). as a result you will get 9 to 10 layers.
5.. ultimately connect the single points.
you see the whole process is simple but time-consuming. there are surely better and more efficient ways and for cad-wizards (like
most of you probably are) with a proper software it won't take a month to get a rough shape, but ... this method is pretty precise
and it works, at least it works for me.
willy
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Willy Tschager writes:
> 1.. take a pencil and draw lines around your model. the distance in height is the height of a plate (sorry about my poor english.
> I hope you get it at least.)
> 2.. take a picture from above. use a long lens (120 mm or longer) to eliminate any perspective distortion. (take also pictures
> from the sides to check the final shape in the sideviews).
> 3.. scan it (yes, I used an old-fashion camera, due to the poor resolution of my digicam). the scan was 6000 x 4000 pixel.
> 4.. use a software like illustrator, freehand to get paths of the altitude lines and convert it to dxf, 3ds, lwo ... or import the
> picture into your cad software if it can handle it an make polygons, splines .... don't waste time and effort to make a smooth path,
> just use straight lines. a rough path or polygon will do the job. I used a grid of 56 point (the crater hill is 28 studs long - I
> divided the distance between studs and layers by 2 to get more detail). as a result you will get 9 to 10 layers.
> 5.. ultimately connect the single points.
> you see the whole process is simple but time-consuming. there are surely better and more efficient ways and for cad-wizards (like
> most of you probably are) with a proper software it won't take a month to get a rough shape, but ... this method is pretty precise
> and it works, at least it works for me.
>
> willy
Huh, this is a real photogrammetry project with aerial pictures,
orthophotos, digital elevation model, map processing etc. The next obvious
step in the future is to apply GPS technology to capture the Lego landscape :-).
Congratulations,
Ampi
| | | | | | |
