 | | Re: Animation using Datsville
|
|
(...) All I did was MPD the Town sections and then ran the MPDs through LDBoxer. I tried to run an MPD of the entire Town.ldr file but it was really slow and LDBoxer exited with a access violation. -Orion (21 years ago, 5-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Animation using Datsville
|
|
(...) Well, I've found one at: (URL) it's from Sept. 2001, and I don't even remember how to use it. (...) Yes please! I would be very happy if you did this. (I've added the exception keyword "Datsville" to my (very conservative) spam filter, so it (...) (21 years ago, 5-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Animation using Datsville
|
|
(...) Typo in the above message. Change "can't" to "can". -Orion (21 years ago, 5-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Animation using Datsville
|
|
(...) Not that I'm aware of (...) I have MPD files of the individual town sections (i.e. Town02, Town10, etc) that have been run through LDBoxer. I can't send them to you if you'd like and then you could just Un-MPD them for the individual files. (...) (21 years ago, 5-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Animation using Datsville
|
|
(...) I've been doing some experiments with different variants of LDBoxer, and also a hing called LDFilTEr. There is a semi-automatic version of LDBoxer where you can pick parts one by one and the interface lets you filter out parts irrelevant for (...) (21 years ago, 5-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Animation using Datsville
|
|
Also, it would be nice if LDBoxer could replace bricks that have only their bottoms or only their tops covered, as opposed to replacing only those bricks that have both their bottoms and their tops covered. This, however, would necessitate the (...) (21 years ago, 5-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Animation using Datsville
|
|
There was some discussion a while back about a technique whereby one culls all objects that are not within the field of view. I don't know if this technique was ever created. I don't know if it's possible to get the bounding box of every object, but (...) (21 years ago, 5-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: More Transparency issues (was: "Illusions")
|
|
(...) Not at 6:30am though. :) I think I found my problem. I am rendering at Q1, where filter and transparency values don't seem to make much difference. Taking out all the #if QUAL checks seems to solve the problem, though it's going to make it a (...) (21 years ago, 4-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: More Transparency issues (was: "Illusions")
|
|
This file renders fine on my machine. I'd say a) Get a clean copy of the Ldraw radisioty file (and, BTW, try rendering without radiosity to see if there is any difference - I doubt it, but hey) or b) Provide your specific color settings (including (...) (21 years ago, 4-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: More Transparency issues (was: "Illusions")
|
|
(...) Just one? I would fill up a few *lines* with question marks if I wasn't worried about leaving some for the rest of you. I tried it again, thinking maybe it was just last night or something. Same problem. So I tried something different: I (...) (21 years ago, 4-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: More Transparency issues (was: "Illusions")
|
|
Hi Mike, I doubt it's the material definition you posted. It renders as a nice solid blue on mah machine. I have blown up the image and seen what you mean. It sure looks like a transparent material has been applied to it. ? (21 years ago, 4-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: More Transparency issues (was: "Illusions")
|
|
Here I am again, pleading for help. I wonder if I'll ever learn enough that I can stop having to ask simple questions... This time the part won't show up, rather than the part showing up, um, *too* well. I'm working with that transparent sceptre (...) (21 years ago, 4-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: "Illusions"
|
|
(...) worlds? But then, from the example renders I posted, that might not be the greatest idea either... -Mike (21 years ago, 4-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: "Illusions"
|
|
(...) Not exactly, but pretty close. The 100 looks like it might be about right, but the 010 is more purple than magenta, and the 001 is clearly yellow and not amber (the nofilter flames look closer to amber). It's almost as if you're programming (...) (21 years ago, 3-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Animation using Datsville
|
|
(...) Yes, I just did this yesterday. I'm now able to render Datsville using qual > 0 but without studs. I'f I turn studs on, POV-Ray fails with an out of memory error. This happens at about 2 GB of memory used. Even with my page file jacked up to 3 (...) (21 years ago, 3-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: "Illusions"
|
|
(...) I think L3P should continue to use rgbf. Wouldn't you agree from the real-world examples you provided in (URL) (21 years ago, 3-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Animation using Datsville
|
|
(...) Have you tried using LDBoxer to cut down on size? (21 years ago, 3-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: "Illusions"
|
|
Couple of things: 1. Where I said "By setting the transparency and transmit values high", I meant "By setting the transparency and *filter* values high", 2. Let me once again point out that CGI and real objects might look the same, but often act (...) (21 years ago, 3-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: "Illusions"
|
|
(...) Looking at your file made me notice something that tells me definitely that you and David are correct. I never noticed before that there is a filter value in there after the rgb vector. Naturally that would skew things a bit. So David was (...) (21 years ago, 3-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: "Illusions"
|
|
(...) Well, let me try it. I tried RGB values for the flames of 1,0,0 - 0,1,0 - 0,0,1 1,1,1 - 0,0,0 respectively. (URL) Deeps (each image under 12K): (5 URLs) But looking at the results it just confuses me more. What do you think? Are these the (...) (21 years ago, 3-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
