Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.Daz 3D is part of
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Do NOT rush Skipper. There are plenty of rushed-built models out there. None of them are labeled "Skipper25". He will publish it when it is ready and not before. In the meanwhile, enjoy the WIPs.
Looking good Skipper.
Yep, it's my fault, but you know me, I'll see something that you maybe missed, point it out, and get you mind working again. Us oldies gotta stick together somehow to keep each other from loosing our minds....LOL.
sorry skipper... not trying to rush you by any means, rushing just turns out sloppy work, I just didn't know if you were making it or just talking about it, either you thought I was rushing you or you mistook my question for... well I don't know what you mistook my question for, was just asking.
I am enjoying, chill. jeez people in this thread are grouches.
Probably the less said, the better.
.
There can be no question that if one wants a good, close-up image of an item, then that item must be built in 3D with lots of facets, smoothing and so on. However, when I contemplated making the protection rails along the many paths of the cliff face, it was fully apparent that with countless posts and rails, such a method would result in an astronomical number of facets. It was quite out of the question.
.
Clearly, the only course was to use transmapped planes, but here another problem arose - out of the many runs, no two were alike. What then? Did one have to create a separate plane for each and every run, UV mapping and transmapping each individually? What about the runs of protection rails down sloping paths? Would they not create a problem with mappings almost as tall as they were long?
.
No. The clue lies in bay length - that is, of one post only, plus its associated lengths of rail. The only necessary graphics for this are a small texture file of one bay length and a matching transmapping. End of. One creates a long narrow plane to suit the available space and projects the bay mapping onto it. Now here's the clever bit - TILING. The tile instruction in DS and Poser instruct the render engine on how many times to repeat the .jpg within the allotted space. Therefore increasing the X tiling value causes more and more bay lengths to appear within the same length of railing. Two, five or fifty, it's all the same to the engine. No big mappings, no individual treatment. Keep going until the distance between the posts looks correct. The pic below shows the result.
.
What of sloping paths? If one tilts a straight run then the upright posts will be out of vertical, so instead, the plane must be slewed - one end pulled down until it matches the surface, creating a parallelogram. Tile as before.
.
Only one small problem remains. After a run tiled in this manner, one end of the horizontal bars are left hanging in space. (The right end in the pic.) Most often, this can be connected to the next run at a new angle, but where it does not, then one must provide a solo post - and here, a 3D post will look well.
.
BTW, the thick line between the horizontal path and the vertical wall (arrowed) is a "feature" of D|S and we can do nothing about it. Poser has a similar "feature" that often allows light to leak.
Somehow that render makes the cliff faces (cameraward) look like a single layer of felt laid on another, lower felt (ramp and upper deck). Odd.
My thought for the "featured" artifact? Mask it with a single pane painted to look like the weeds and grass you currently have painted to the base of the wall.
Mmmm, yes, you're right. I'll give it a try after the railings are finished.
.
BTW, it occurred to me that what the whole area needs are a few coin-in-the slot binoculars, but all that I can find on the internet are uninteresting boxes. Can anyone locate something that looks the part? Thanks.
It is not often that one posts a render in order to show what is NOT there, but in this case not only is it very interesting, but may also be of use to others.
.
When the safety rails on the cliff were finished, the heavy shadowy lines (shown above and discussed with Eustace) were tackled. Putting planes in place to cover the lines did not work because of course, the shadowy lines simply moved to the front of the new covering planes. What DID work was laying the cover plane back at 45 degrees, bridging the angle between the wall and the path. It was going to be a lot of work to cover every one of these black lines however and would be unsightly unless the cover fillet was very small indeed. It was not a task that one could relish. Perhaps it had something to do with the lighting? I began moving light sources about.
.
There came a time when I had occasion to use the Edit/Delete all Lights command. Fine. I carried on experimenting and later created a single light source. Now here's a funny thing (as Max Miller used to say) - the heavy lines were no longer there! Do not ask me to explain it because I cannot. I simply report what happened - I deleted all lights, created one - and the heavy lines did not return. Nor have they yet. The pic below shows their total absence in places where one would have expected them.
.
Good. That finishes the cliff and road (except for the compass) and we may turn our attention elsewhere.
Wow, looking really, really good!
Thank you Simon. It has a certain air of solidity, I think. :-)
I thought about my response and was tempted to edit it, as the 'Wow' suggests surprise ... which would be inappropriate! Wholly not surprised by the quality of the work!!!! :)
LOL. "Wow" is one of those portmanteau words which can mean almost anything, is it not? Nowadays it also suggests appreciation, so your remark was not taken amiss. Thank you again.
.
You will - I am sure - be interested in the pic below, which shows the current state of affairs.
Wow ...! :)
And I am not sure you meant portmanteau ... portmanteau is/was an invented word (can't recall by whom, some famous literay person .. maybe Twain?) to describe a new word formed of 'blending' two others (and is, apparently, a portmanteau word itself - though not sure how) :) But I think I know what you meant.
Looking very good Skipper.
Now, doesn't that add much more character to the Pier? I know you have more to do but I really like what you have done so far.
You mention viewfinders his a google search on them maybe it will help
https://www.google.com/search?q=tourist+viewfinder&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=bt4&rlz=1R1RNFA_en___US346&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Pr3aT9jeGIPs2QXSvvy1CA&ved=0CFAQ_AUoAQ&biw=1272&bih=794&sei=Qr3aT_WRNeOe2gXq9tyEBg
This is fun. And there was me thinking that a portmanteau word was so called because it carried lots of different meanings, like a travelling salesman! You learn something new every day. Mark Twain - yes, it sounds like him.... GBS maybe?..... Maybe not, although he was "into" fooling around with words....
.
Cherokee - yes, I'll admit it - you were right all along. Glad you like the results.
You mention viewfinders his a google search on them maybe it will help
https://www.google.com/search?q=tourist+viewfinder&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=bt4&rlz=1R1RNFA_en___US346&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Pr3aT9jeGIPs2QXSvvy1CA&ved=0CFAQ_AUoAQ&biw=1272&bih=794&sei=Qr3aT_WRNeOe2gXq9tyEBg.
.
Thanks Robert. Not just one thingie through which to peer at the pier, but several pages of them! Very useful.
Glad to be of help
We are at last ready to start adding superstructure to the pier. See below. The details of the compass are yet to go in, but the blue circle marks the spot. I also relented on the semi-circular structures jutting out from the promenade - I think they are called barbicans. Whatever they are called, I have moved them within sight of the pier because without them the scene looked a little empty and unfinished.
The breakwater has been started but is not yet done. There will be one more here.
Impressive looking.
Skipper,
This is looking extremely good.
Thanks guys. The pier itself starts to come alive with added details. It won't be too long before we have Pamela Anderson strutting her stuff down there.
.
Actually, it was while angling for the POV below, that it occurred to me that all my previous work on the cliff safety rails will have to be scrapped. This is because just about every user at some time or another will want to place their camera at the top of the cliff, looking down at the pier. From this position, the shortcomings and failings of a system of transmapped planes become painfully apparent. They'll just have to go.
.
What to put in their place is a question. My current thinking is that a compromise is called for - a single run of built 3D railings at the top for the photo opportunities and the rest as 3D stone walls for the economy. I'll make a decision later.
Skipper,
OK, so, if you were modeling the posts and railings, what would the poly count be for one post? I'm trying to find out if what I'm thinking might be better.
The type of metal post that I would WISH to use, based upon those in the prototype, would comprise about 160 facets per post, which is unthinkable. However, what I have in mind is the type of precast concrete post that is square in section and has a top rounded in one plane only. This has a count of only 9 facets per post. There is a cost in that the product is not so pretty, but needs must when the devil drives.
.
It must also be bourne in mind that the whole cliff face has about 600 posts all told, as well as about 30 x 3 rails, each of which has 8 facets. Although the number of rails per run can be reduced to 2, the facet count soon rockets.
.
A low stone wall has only 6 facets PER RUN, so the saving is very considerable.
.
I will gladly consider any suggestions that you come up with.
I'd recommend a petition to North Norfolk District Council demanding they change the style of post to something far more practical such as concrete posts ... ;)
Skipper,
I was just checking out Cromer Pier you had on ShareCG before and you have alot of fences on the Pier itself. I'm using my Acer netbook because my desktop computer crashed. The Acer only has 1 GB RAM and a 1.60 GHz processor and using Poser Pro 2010, Cromer Pier loads and renders just fine. I'm thinking that if this bare bones computer can render the Pier with no problems, modeling the posts and railings for the cliff face may work. I'd have to load it and try rendering to make sure.
You may well be right, Cherokee, but that is not the whole story, is it? When we are talking about safety fences on the cliff, we are taking about memory use ADDITIONAL to that already made. When folks load a model, they also want to load a figure - or two, or three. Men fighting, women gossipping, playing with children or flashing the flesh. Animals maybe. And figures usually mean clothing. Figures and clothing - these gobble up resources at a fantastic rate. Take almost any published render and by far the greater memory use is in figures, clothing and immediate artefacts - a coach, car, aeroplane, gun and so on. For 99% of users, characters are central; they do not want their computers to be entirely taken up by scenery. Indeed, for most folks, models such as mine are relegated to the background; admired perhaps but then ignored save for setting the scene.
.
For artists such as myself, this poses ethical problems as well as practical ones. How much is too much? I am jealous for my work; I want to make it better and better, but I have to keep restraints in mind. I am tough-minded and am quite prepared to say, "If my model is too heavy on resources for your puny laptop, then delete something or move on to another model; mine is not for you." It has not happened yet, but if it did, it would make little difference to me - I am not paid save by the appreciation of that miniscule 1% who have the civility to say "Thank you." Nevertheless, that same imp who sits on my shoulder and criticises my work also criticises my relationships with others. I want others to like and to use what I make.
.
What then? Somewhere, somehow, one has to strike a balance; make a judgement. In this particular case, I think that I will complete just about everything and then take a look at the numbers. If they are reasonable and not TOO much above those of previous models such as the shopping centre or Buck House, then I will in all probability make a good job of the safety fences. One cannot say fairer than that.
Skipper,
Where you been and how's the Pier going?
Hi Cherokee. I had a couple of days not feeling very bright, but the bulk of my time has been taken up with the pier, especially in reducing the number of polys and in that, have been quite successful. It has been a bit like the old story of a duck - nothing happening above, but paddling like mad underneath. In other words, there is little that I can show you that is new or different, but I know that it is more efficient. It begins to look good for reasonable safety rails.
.
I want to do the lifeboat station again and in a few days will post an update pic.
.
Good wishes.
Sounds like you're gonna push the boat out ... :)