On Sun, 2002-11-24 at 22:15, The Tone'ster wrote:
It is just that the few 3d tools I have taken a look at, Maya, Blender and one
other one (can't rememeber the name, it was a bit ago) are complex to use.
Harder, it seems to me anyway, than thinking in terms of edges and nodes in
some 0,0,0
The Tone'ster writes:
It's not the I _really_ feel the need.
It is just that the few 3d tools I have taken a look at, Maya, Blender and one
other one (can't rememeber the name, it was a bit ago) are complex to use.
Harder, it seems to me anyway, than thinking in terms of edges and nodes in
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
and *far* more accurately than doing it all by hand.
Actually sometimes even with ac3d available I still need to, rarely, go into
an editor to tweak something! But yes, a tool is the way to go.
3d modeling is a lot more complex than word processing.
The Tone'ster wrote:
... I was wondering if there has ever been talk of exposing 3d models through a
metalanguage in XML, or maybe to a spec such as SVG (though I guess SVG is 2d,
not 3d).
I wouldn't be surprised if that happens some time, but given Davids
background I suspect he wants to put
Once upon a time, you were sitting and writing:
... I was wondering if there has ever been talk of exposing 3d models through a
metalanguage in XML, or maybe to a spec such as SVG (though I guess SVG is 2d,
not 3d).
In this way, a person might not have to run off and download/pay for/learn
Erik Hofman writes:
I wouldn't be surprised if that happens some time, but given Davids
background I suspect he wants to put out an IEEE draft first then ...
You haven't read my rants about standards bodies, have you?
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Elad Yarkoni writes:
FOA, I think VRML is the answer to your question (??),
not neccesarily in FlightGear.
Besdies, I do no underdtand if you refer the difficulties
in rendering, or modeling.
I would use VRML if plib supported it fully.
Moreover, PLIB has the ability to load 3D
The Tone'ster writes:
In this way, a person might not have to run off and download/pay
for/learn some heavy duty 3d program to render some sort of basic
aircraft frame, or building, or even cockpit.
I've considered adding support for defining simple geometry directly
in the XML, but it
David Megginson wrote:
Erik Hofman writes:
I wouldn't be surprised if that happens some time, but given Davids
background I suspect he wants to put out an IEEE draft first then ...
You haven't read my rants about standards bodies, have you?
Eh, no.
Can you do them again, it sounds like
David Megginson writes:
Elad Yarkoni writes:
FOA, I think VRML is the answer to your question (??),
not neccesarily in FlightGear.
Besdies, I do no underdtand if you refer the difficulties
in rendering, or modeling.
I would use VRML if plib supported it fully.
Yuck - VRML as
Norman Vine writes:
The problem with AC3D is that it really needs a propriatary editor
even if it is an inexpensive one
Now that Blender is Open Source, you can create AC3D models using an
OSS modelling tool and a bit of Python.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, [EMAIL
It's not the I _really_ feel the need.
It is just that the few 3d tools I have taken a look at, Maya, Blender and one
other one (can't rememeber the name, it was a bit ago) are complex to use.
Harder, it seems to me anyway, than thinking in terms of edges and nodes in
some 0,0,0 centered 3d
hi,
new to flight gear.
ignore me if this is an FAQ.
really like what I see with the sim.
since the sim architecure is so highly built around the use of XML files
exposing everything from config, to flight models to panels ...
... I was wondering if there has ever been talk of exposing 3d
13 matches
Mail list logo
