On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:57:32 -0400, Josh wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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. ..ok, maybe I should have called it "not fully compatible with each other", I keep hearing some model features get lost going back and forth between these 2. > > ..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. ..true, this far, and to do FEA modelling for wing flexing etc, we suddenly need solids, and yes, they _can_ be made from their surfaces. And vice versa, even for OpenGL. > 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. ..aye, and brlcad will need a lot of work to get there. Meanwhile we have its many nice file converters etc, and it could also wind up as a Blender lib set. > 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. .."not yet if ever", agreed, and another question is why would we want to do it that way if a better way _can_ be found. > There seems to be a lot of hype about this, ..aye, but it has faded quite a bit, Blender _has_ become a very good surface modeller, and because it got the one right license, the GPL. > but I have yet to see an actual model for FG come out of BRLCad. ..aye. "Hang in there", "somebody will have to go first." ;o) > Josh -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-users
