I would like to know what is "wrong" and why "again" Can you
elaborate on those 2 points.
While you may have a perfect minds eye view of what you desire I am
not a mind reader. Decent art or at least " in this style" sure helps
a lot.
3D modelling is not easy nor painless nor quick, I like to get it
right the first time.
I know you fab most work from nothing but raw stock, 3D modelling is
much the same starting with less. Both valid techniques. Although 3D
requires you to make all the mistakes in a batch at the start,
minimal fudging at the bench to fix stuff.
I would like to know what is "wrong" and why "again"
You continue to show that you do not understand what a CAD modeling
program is or how it is used in the jewelry business today.
You point to images that are rendered by POV-ray as an example of
CAD. POV-ray is not a modeling program it is a rendering program, in
the hands of an expert it generates photorealistic images, but the
underlying structure of those images must (with very limited
exceptions) be generated in a modeling program and imported to
POV-ray. The output from POV-ray is an image, not a file that could
be grown or milled. In fact most of the models one would import into
POV-ray would not be able to be grown without a great deal of effort
in “translating” them into a model that has the correct attributes
to be processed by a CAM program.
POV-ray is not a modeling program it is a rendering program, in the
hands of an expert it generates photorealistic images, but the
underlying structure of those images must (with very limited
exceptions) be generated in a modeling program
Even more than that - POV-Ray was the first ray-tracer (that’s what
the “ray” means). It has long been usurped by Renderman as a
state-of-the-art renderer. Pixar designed Renderman and it was so
successful and useful they decided to sell it, too. POV-Ray is
actually more than a bit arcane, in today’s world.
Can we get off of this POV &? I still want to know what is on the
modern up to date college curriculum that will qualify a CAD modeler
to actually be able to communicate in standard language of drafting
and design ? If that still exists ? rather than what seems to be the
standard of mouseclicking keyboard tapper which really only
qualifies one to have messy hair and eat prepackaged snacks.
PovRay is a fully fledged 3D modeling application. Please, before
making anymore nonsensical remarks, download PovRay manual and do
some reading.
If all you want to model is geometric primitives then yes you can
describe a sphere cube cone etc but it is not a modeling program From
the POV ray website
1.1.1 Program Description
The Persistence of Vision Ray-Tracer creates three-dimensional,
photo-realistic images using a rendering technique called
ray-tracing. It reads in a text file containing information
describing the objects and lighting in a scene and generates an
image of that scene from the view point of a camera also
described in the text file. Ray-tracing is not a fast process by
any means, but it produces very high quality images with
realistic reflections, shading, perspective and other effects."
to describe a lathe object like a simple cylinder you would need
to enter a bit of text like this:
| lathe {
| linear_spline
| 5,
| <2, 0>, <3, 0>, <3, 5>, <2, 5>, <2, 0>
| pigment {Red}
| }
According to the POV website this will create a cylinder.
The cylinder has an inner radius of 2 and an outer radius of 3,
giving a wall width of 1. It's height is 5 and it's located at
the origin pointing up, i.e. the rotation axis is the y-axis.
This is a programming language not a modeling program.
Can we get off of this POV &? I still want to know what is on the
modern up to date college curriculum that will qualify a CAD
modeler to actually be able to communicate in standard language of
drafting and design ?
Well, understanding programs like PovRay is the key to this
discussion, but I shall say no more about it. I just posted a blog on
the subject and anyone interested can read about.
To your question about CAD education. Standard language of drafting
and design requires development of 2 dimensional thinking. If I am
looking at a cube in terms of standard drafting, I will imagine how
it looks from three directions, to represent the form. CAD modeling
requires 3 dimensional thinking and training programs actually
trying to eradicate draftsman from the student. The reason is
efficiency. Things can be done much faster using 3D modeling
techniques than starting on projection level. Personally I disagree
with such approach, because it produces half-baked CAD operators, but
the same can be observed in Jewellery Industry as a whole. How is it
different from substituting knowledge of working with metal with the
knowledge of working with wax? It is the same thing. So half-baked
CAD operators for half-baked goldsmiths. And that represent the
state of the things today.
Well I just guess my brain is just broken. I spent a lot of time
years ago as a 2D draftsman. I also got to do the 3D exploded views
(like a Sears catalogue). No one else in the shop liked them, I
loved them. One of the curses of living in a 3D or 4D reality
Things can be done much faster using 3D modeling techniques than
starting on projection level. Personally I disagree with such
approach, because it produces half-baked CAD operators, but the same
can be observed in Jewellery Industry as a whole.
So… subject matter like nice lettering technique,trigonometry,
Descriptive Geometry etc. are no longer taught or as part of a
comprehensive drafting and design program ?
So..... subject matter like nice lettering technique,trigonometry,
Descriptive Geometry etc. are no longer taught or as part of a
comprehensive drafting and design program ?
This is becoming more about education rather than about 3d modeling.
When college offers a course in CAD or any other discipline for that
matter, they are less concern with providing education, than with
filling available seats. And everything flows from there.
This is becoming more about education rather than about 3d
modeling. When college offers a course in CAD or any other
discipline for that matter, they are less concern with providing
education, than with filling available seats. And everything flows
from there.
This conversation is quite helpful since i started the thread asking
my original question on searching for a method of communication the
thread has progressed to a discussion of POV. POV in theory, I
suppose would be an answer to the problem as it would provide a non
verbal means communicating an image to a CAD modeler who would then
create a new image exactly like the first one provided for a machine
to produce a model. with this said I have now come to some
realizations, and one conclusion
#1) college or education for drafting as we knew it in the past is a
big waste of of time and money. An engineer or designer can now
produce thier own designs in a quality format without the skills of
an intermediary the draftsman. the engineer now must learn to
manipulate the computer program on his own and then decide to follow
through with the machining or prototyping process himself or hire a
machinist to babysit the machine.
#2) college and education is a waste of money and time because
anyone can get a a copy of a CAD program and some hardware and
figure it out on thier own and then self proclaim themselves as a
CAD modeler.
#3) verbal communication is a waste of time because those now
working with these new wonderful computer programs do not need to
communicate the trend seems to be that everyone just takes the CAD
modeling service to an "in house " service they do it themselves
because it is too frustrating and not workable in the time frames of
todays industry to sub-contract the work
At the risk of redundancy Leonid points out the obvious conclusion in
the opening quote “just fill the seats” I wonder if the teacher will
be a self proclaimed CAD modeler or they will be the product of a
self proclaimed CAD modeler ? Either way without a foundation in
drawing plans by hand it is not possible to communicate with either
one -