Subject:
|
Re: Question about the Future of LDraw CAD family.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:20:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
640 times
|
| |
|
|
"Dwayne "Fallenhunter" Miller" <dmiller23@neo.rr.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:H8Brs2.2M8@lugnet.com...
>
> I found this program, a couple of hours after posting, seems too limited • in its
> blocks availble for what we do, and as what we do is totally freeform, no
> pegs/holes to constrain us, overlapping a few blocks here and there (in • life
> its called scraping/cutting/sanding blocks), is VERY userful and
practical.
Yes, in this case you need something like LDRAW/MLCad, where parts can be
'pushed into' each other. BC/AC is very strict (to speed up the rendering) -
parts *CANNOT* overlap (as a matter of fact they can, but BC/AC can't render
that correctly - a POV render will be OK, though).
> Not to downplay the program, heck on the Hirst Arts Message board I posted • the
> company URL for the block system itself, as an interesting side trip for • the
> Hirst Art guys. It meet with VERY favorable results, even from Mr. Hirst
> himself. Its a good program, and the export to POV stuff looks VERY
promising.
I read the message board, and must say you have not delved deep enough into
the Ankersteine to be allowed to say 'limited' :-)
The Anchor Stones were created around 1880, and the original company existed
until 1963. There are about 2000 known different stones, and surely a number
of unknown, as you apparently could get 'custom designed' stones made.
Selling in bulk was also started very early, and the founder almost
immediately saw that there was a market for adult fans...
> Now if a SDK could be made avaible to expand it, and maybe further branch • off
> the orginal cad program, with a CastleBlocksCAD program... then we might • talk,
> assuming that some of the restrictions present in the AnkerCAD can be
> disable(even if on a stone by stone basis), as its IMPOSSIBLE to make • datafiles
> for every single block shape someone might carve.
The part editor is built-in into BC and AC, and you can (in principle)
design any blocks with it. I have a beatiful BC model which was sent to me
by a guy in Canada, who told me he used BC to design pubs (with his own part
definitions)!!! I have also used it myself to model a kitchen, to see how it
might look before buying all the cupboards and stuff.
Can you name some of the things/issues you need seen to?
> Impressive, mind sharing how you would go about using meta commands to do • that?
> thats about the EXACT texture that 80%+ of our blocks use, rest is REALLY
It's really very simple in POVRay, just use the 'normal' keyword for the
texture:
-8<-----------------------------------------------
#if (USE_MEDIA)
#declare AMB = 0.1;
#declare DIF = 0.9;
#declare BMP = 0.5;
#declare INT = 0.5;
#else
#declare AMB = 0.25;
#declare DIF = 0.7;
#declare BMP = 0.5;
#declare INT = 1.0;
#end
#declare Color1 = material { /* Yellow */
texture {
pigment { rgb INT*<0.85, 0.67, 0.37> }
finish { ambient AMB diffuse DIF }
normal {bumps BMP / 2}
/*
The 'BMP / 2' is because brighter colours don't need as large
variations as darker colours (At least for Ankersteine)
*/
}
}
-8<-----------------------------------------------
the rest of the beauty of the rendering comes from the 'Excellent rendering'
thread (using radiosity in POVRay) - and a judicious choice of lighting. I
have three lights:
- one without shadow _very_ high up in the air, to get overall lighting,
- one without shadow _exactly_ at the camera point, to make sure everything
you
can see is also lighted, thus eliminating the 'flat' unlighted surfaces
where texture is
not visible,
- one with shadow to emulate the sunshine/lamp
> rough, fieldstone/cobblestone/flagstone, or smooth polished stone (first • is
> going to be a real bear, means hand coding each rough cut stone by hand,
If the sub-stones are the same size you can do a #macro in POVRay iterating
one sub-stone over and over again. Apply some random variation in the
texture, and it might work quite well.
I would recommend looking into CSG - create one large wall with the
structure, and create the different parts with 'intersection' between the
structured wall and a geometry definition for the actual part.
> But that means that in order to use it, we would have to see what blocks • are
> availble in both systems, and only use them, until such time as more • datafiles
> could be made.
Yes, and no, not necessarily. As the parts in AC are defined by surfaces
(and lines), a crude POV version could be auto generated if the nice one
doesn't exist, so you could always render what you could model.
> I do like the direct to POV export option tho.. something lacking in the
> Windows CAD for regular legos.
It's so easy, I think you just need to suggest it to Michael L. to get it in
MLCad.
> > AnkerCAD uses a part format of it's own (of course!), and the part editor • is
> > built-in. It is not suitable for the level of detail that LDRAW parts • have,
> > but more for quick sketching.
>
> Yea, it seemed crude, compared to even the BlockCAD program... but • definatly
> something I am going to watch for updates on... and play with a bit.
:-) Your comparison has missed something... It depends on the parts you want
to model.
By defining the basic block large enough (AC can handle any scaling), you
can get any level of detail, at the cost of rendering time.
> > A crude 'import LDRAW part' function exists, and it can work for larger, • not
> > very detailed, parts, if they already exist in LDRAW.
>
> I was unable to import any of my homemade blocks,
Yes, I was misleading here. A crude 'import LDRAW _models_' is included in
BC, but that can only import known parts, in the fixed 0,90,180,270 degree
'studs up' rotations.
Another program, not in the public domain for the moment, can convert an
LDRAW _part_ to a BC part, but it needs extensive hand fiddling afterwards,
to remove a lot of unnecessary detail (insides, etc.), adjust the position
of surfaces and lines (due to resolution differences and rounding error), so
it's not really useful for Lego parts, as the resolution of BC has been
fixed, and it's to late to change it.
It might work well with your Castle parts, depending on how large you've
made them. Do you care to send me some .dat files I can test?
BC/AC also has a way to put a bitmap on a surface - today only on one
surface per part, but the technique could be expanded to cover the whole
part with bitmaps. This will _really_ slow down rendering time, but might
produce good results.
> Ok rather than email you seperatly, what the heck, is another branch of • the
> program a possiblity? My coding skills are rusty and were never that good, • but
> providing its in a langugue I have skills in, I will help (VB, Ansi C,
Ansi C++)
I'm always open to suggestions, although my free time is of course limited
by Real Life. The BC and AC programs are written in Borland Delphi 5.0
(Pascal), but should work in later versions too, maybe also in version 4
(some computer magazines has given Delphi 4, 5 and 6 away on CD during the
years and there are also some books including Delphi).
The question is, where should we take the discussion? It's getting off-topic
for lugnet.cad (doesn't matter to me, but others might be disturbed, and
Larry will soon jump in and FUT to some group i don't read...)
We could of course go on in loc.se, where the FUTters don't have as much
jurisdiction...
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/gallery/index.htm
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Question about the Future of LDraw CAD family.
|
| <snip> (...) I found this program, a couple of hours after posting, seems too limited in its blocks availble for what we do, and as what we do is totally freeform, no pegs/holes to constrain us, overlapping a few blocks here and there (in life its (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
