To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cad.dat.partsOpen lugnet.cad.dat.parts in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / LDraw Files / Parts / 6510
6509  |  6511
Subject: 
Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
Date: 
Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:34:27 GMT
Viewed: 
19311 times
  
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



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
 
(...) 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 (...) (15 years ago, 11-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
 
(...) 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 (...) (15 years ago, 11-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)

68 Messages in This Thread:
























Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR