 | | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
--snip-- (...) --snip-- (...) Is it that they prefer POV-Ray or that they don't have/aren't aware that the latest versions of LPub can use LDView? Although I consider myself quite a dab hand at POV-Ray I would never use it for instructions now that (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) In my opinion, both images are unusable for instructions. Prefering legibility over realism (though a bit of "realism" is still needed to even recognize the shapes), I put down some universal rules for creating instructions of virtually any (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) This is one of the main reasons I posted asking for opinions. I think I can fix this, but I know that fixing it is going to be a lot of work. There's no point bothering if people aren't going to like the results. (...) That can be fixed (with (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) That isn't a silly question at all, really. In fact, it may be more important than all the flaws that have been pointed out. Based on the comments here, there seems to be a general consensus about a few things regarding "high-quality (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) On my monitor, version 1 certainly looks cleaner and sharper. I will be interested to see how you accomplished this. It might get me back into creating instructions again, which is something I have stopped doing because I was getting so (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) I've found that getting rid of the transparent colors' refraction characteristics makes for a much clearer rendering, too: (URL) no refraction>> Jim (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) Unless Travis is explicitly setting it, I think POV-Ray defaults to 2.2. -Orion (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) Good point. I think the official instructions are harder to follow now with the fancy rendering. Sometimes you can't tell one color from another, especially black, white, and the various shades of gray. I can barely tell the white bricks from (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) Just for comparison, I rendered your model using the same technique as mine: (URL) m6459>> Transparent parts definitely seem to be a challenge. Jim (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) For instructions I'd definitely choose Version 1, for nice pictures Version 2 minus the hard, black edges and a little less shiny. As the other's have said: - too dark in the black. Actually, to me the whole picture is too dark - which monitor (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) - The shadows in version 2 cause color confusion. This is the most glaring example but it is repeated thoughout the rendering: the 1x2 grille piece is white in version 1 but looks grey in version 2. - No conditional lines rendered in both. - (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) I agree with Philo that the shadows are distracting. I don't think the stud logos are necessary, either. On the other hand, I think the transparent parts in the first rendering look a little too dark. There's also a grainy texture under some (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) For me, the keypoint here is "for instructions". Anything that remove legibility to the image should be avoided. In both versions conditional lines are not rendered. Not a huge problem here, could become one on models with many rounded (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
I'm working on a different rendering method (for instructions) using POV-Ray, and I wanted to get some opinions about the output. On that note, I have two sample renderings in two different sizes, and I'd like to get people's feedback. Note that I'm (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | 3901.dat - Minifig Hair with Inline POV-code from Anton Raves Library [DAT]
|
|
Anton, are you there? Two questions: * Is it ok to inline your modified POV code into DAT files? Do I have your permission to do so? * Where is the function/macro ring() defined? (Had to REM it out to stop POV-Ray from complaining...) 0 Minifig Hair (...) (17 years ago, 31-Aug-07, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: RACHAL Polar - changeover day
|
|
--snip-- (...) For future ones I'll try to include them but I simply didn't have time for this one. Sorry. Tim (17 years ago, 8-Aug-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: RACHAL Polar - changeover day
|
|
(...) Wow that is huge. I was wondering when we do have RACHAL if it would also be possible to include a .zip of the unofficial parts used in the .mpd file? Thanks. Looking forward to try it. Have some ideas. Zach Best (17 years ago, 8-Aug-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LGEO quirks with parts 6536 and 6187
|
|
(...) Great! Thanks, Travis. (URL) fix render>> I had never noticed the link to those fixes from the L3P page. It's all part of the journey of discovery for LDraw novices, I suppose. Jim (17 years ago, 8-Aug-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LGEO quirks with parts 6536 and 6187
|
|
It's known, and there are fixes. See (URL). --Travis (17 years ago, 8-Aug-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | LGEO quirks with parts 6536 and 6187
|
|
In the course of experimenting with L3P and POV-Ray, I've noticed there are a few parts that appear positioned or oriented incorrectly when LGEO parts are used (with L3P's -lgeo option). Here is an example of the two I have found so far, (URL) 6536> (...) (17 years ago, 8-Aug-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
