 | | New Animation!
|
|
Hello, all. I have just discovered POV-Ray's wonderful Spline feature. I was mulling over how to create fluid movements with exponential curves. I did achieve some good results, but the animations are rather small and simple. It then occurred to me (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.ray, lugnet.animation)
|
| |
| | Re: POVRAY questions
|
|
(...) it be (...) 3.5. Actually they have different setting and lighting. But I rendered the same file in 3.5 too: (URL) again the 3.6 file: (URL) have no idea what is going on. I am going on holiday now. I will post a question on the pov-ray board (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: POVRAY questions
|
|
(...) Ouch!! You using the same .POV file? If so why is that occuring? Could it be becuase of the code you use for radiosity? As the code was developed for 3.5. -AHui A&M LWorks (URL) (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: POVRAY questions
|
|
I have my doubts; look at this: (URL) is done with PR 3.6. There are loads of artifacts in the round grey Technic parts. Compare it with this: (URL) in PR 3.5. Jeroen "Eduardo Vazquez Harte" <eduvazhar@telefonica.net> wrote in message (...) (20 years ago, 1-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: POVRAY questions
|
|
(...) I say upgrade. There are no major (if any) syntax changes and 3.6 is faster. 3.6 also fixed the bug in the colors.inc file. -Orion (20 years ago, 30-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | POVRAY questions
|
|
What you all think of POV-RAY 3.6? Should we update to 3.6 or keep with 3.5 or 3.1g? I use 3.5 for windows but i prefer the 3.5 for cygwin but without cygwin. What if we just work with 3.1g , 3.5 and 3.6 without having to be forced to use the latest (...) (20 years ago, 30-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | MG3k thread in .space
|
|
Hi everybody I started a thread over in .space a week ago, should have cross-posted since the first picture might spark some interest over here: (URL) (20 years ago, 12-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick 2 x 2 with Wheels and Dually Wheels
|
|
(...) Well, I actually had to do this to modell the gap in the tube. Fortunately nothing broke. (On the other hand, I have plenty of these bricks, and I'll buy even more :-D ) (...) I have both versions. I have not changed the taps or clips in this (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick 2 x 2 with Wheels and Dually Wheels
|
|
(...) My advise is: Don't try this at home! Those tap or clips broke very easily even when they were new, and I guess time hasn't made then less fragile... Then we had to fix them with a 3022 Brick 2x2 or a broken 650 Nylon Coupling (...) That was a (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick 2 x 2 with Wheels and Dually Wheels
|
|
Niels - Looks nice! On some of my older 2x2 wheel bricks there is a gap which allows the axle to be removed and/or snapped into the brick. On the newer bricks the metal axle cannot be removed (looks similar to your ldraw part). I'll see if I can (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
