Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > ..a fundamentally better solution is use a _solid_ modeller, rather > than these 2 mutually incompatible _surface_ modellers. > Is precisely why I include brlcad(.org) on my FGLiveCD.
I would hardly call Blender and AC3D mutually incompatible. Many FG modelers use them both in combination, importing and exporting models back and forth to take advantage of the best parts of both programs. > > ..modelling a solid, means you _do_ get its surfaces for free, even > if you have to paint them. When it dries, it too becomes a solid. > Modelling surfaces, means you _may_ get a solid for free, > unless it leaks out some hole between your surfaces. ;o) > Yes, I have tried BRLCad and am intrigued, but when it comes down to it OpenGL deals in surfaces and not solids, and I too get my surfaces just as free as you do when I model my surfaces as you do when you model your solids :) The solids I simply have no use for. In addition, I have not found too many things that BRLCad can do that Blender cannot, and plenty that Blender can do and BRLCad can't. If I happened to have a lot of numerical data on some model, I might use BRLCad for it's data pipes to get started, then move to Blender for all the detail and cosmetic work. As it stands, I have lots of pictures and diagrams and Blender is much better suited to working with those. In addition, since we are simulating objects and not not making technical renditions of them, it is often beneficial from an appearance and performance perspective to have a surface that isn't a solid or even complete. I find myself starting with completely enclosed surfaces in Blender all the time and then later cutting huge chunks of the surface away to reduce polygon count. You just can't do that with BRLCad. There seems to be a lot of hype about this, but I have yet to see an actual model for FG come out of BRLCad. Josh _______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-users
