Gareth Edwards wrote: > 2009/10/2 Bill Gatliff <[email protected]>: > >> Cheating or not, all the examples he posted look _awesome_! :) >> >> Let's say the objective of the 3D effects/output in PCB were to test >> against a 3D model of the whole system--- not just to visualize the >> (populated) PCB. Would Blender be the right output format then? >> > > I guess it depends what your goal is. Kai-Martin's assumed goal was to > produce a (photo?-)realistic depiction of the layout/assembly. Blender > is extremely well suited to that. But... > > To me that's not as useful from an engineering perspective as, say, > being able to see your board, and, crucially, interact with both the > view of the board and maybe its mechanical location in the system, in > real time. This definitely does not need raytracing and is the kind of > application OpenGL is well suited to. >
I guess in the ideal world, I would be able to interact with a 3D model of the board/mechanicals/etc. with the highest visual resolution that my impatience would allow, and then also be able to produce time-consuming, photorealistic output for display to the customer. The two objectives wouldn't necessarily need to use the same tools post-PCB. b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [email protected] _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
