|
|
|
|
|
January 22nd, 2003, 09:48 PM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,547
Thanks: 1
Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Better quality from Doga
I decided to give Doga L3 a try, and it looks really cool (a renderer that supports CEL SHADING ) but one thing that turned me off is there doesn't seem to be any way to render curved surfaces accurately - they always get turned into this weird polygon mesh... also, how the heck do you do extrusions?
__________________
The Ed draws near! What dost thou deaux?
|
January 24th, 2003, 11:32 PM
|
|
Major
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Irving, TX
Posts: 1,237
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Better quality from Doga
Ed Kolis, rendering curved surfaces accurately is done by tweaking the settings of each part of your model. There are enough setting to tweak any 'curved' surface making it accurate. Mesh or no!
What are you calling 'extrusions'?
mlmbd
|
January 25th, 2003, 01:29 AM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,547
Thanks: 1
Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Re: Better quality from Doga
But even if I create a simple sphere, say to represent a planet, because of the small number of polygons Doga is using, the sphere doesn't look very spherical - create one and look at the outline, it's not a circle! My question is how do you increase the number of polygons so you can model such surfaces more accurately? It just seems there are too many prebuilt complex objects to add and not enough basic primitives or ways to reshape an existing object beyond stretching and squashing it. For instance that face that comes with the program - how the heck was that created? Certainly not in Doga... there don't seem to be any commands to do that - you'd probably need some sort of polygon mesh editor. Or maybe I just don't understand Doga....
Oh, BTW, an "extrusion" is what you get when you take some figure and move it through space, possibly rotating or resizing it as it moves. For example, a cylinder - take a circle and move it through a straight line and you get a cylinder.
edit: And maybe it's because I can't read the manual - every time I try to load it, Acrobat says I'm missing some "CMap" character set or something...
[ January 24, 2003, 23:34: Message edited by: Ed Kolis ]
__________________
The Ed draws near! What dost thou deaux?
|
January 25th, 2003, 01:45 AM
|
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 5,085
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Better quality from Doga
"It just seems there are too many prebuilt complex objects to add and not enough basic primitives or ways to reshape an existing object beyond stretching and squashing it."
If you've used the previous Version, DOGA started out more like a lego set than a modeling program.
Phoenix-D
__________________
Phoenix-D
I am not senile. I just talk to myself because the rest of you don't provide adequate conversation.
- Digger
|
January 25th, 2003, 05:39 AM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,547
Thanks: 1
Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Re: Better quality from Doga
Guess that explains it... wonder what accounts for its popularity for creating SE4 shipsets then?
__________________
The Ed draws near! What dost thou deaux?
|
January 25th, 2003, 05:56 AM
|
|
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,623
Thanks: 1
Thanked 14 Times in 12 Posts
|
|
Re: Better quality from Doga
Quote:
Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
Guess that explains it... wonder what accounts for its popularity for creating SE4 shipsets then?
|
It's a lot easier to use than most other 3D programs because it's more of connect-the-blocks rather than creating complex objects on your own. I personally don't like it all that much because I find it limiting and the renders are kind of distorted, but you can do some interesting work with it.
|
January 25th, 2003, 05:57 AM
|
|
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Midlothian, Va, USA
Posts: 2,142
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: Better quality from Doga
For me DOGA L3 good because very low cost and is butt simple to use. I get raging headaches trying to use things like Moray/Povray...
__________________
L++, Gd?, $++, Fr-, C---, S*, T?, Sf+++, Tcp, A+, Bb++@, M++, MpB5, MpT, MpD, MpSa, MpM, RV, Pwt, Fqt, Nd-, Rpt, G+, Au, Mmt,S++, Ss+,
|
January 25th, 2003, 06:14 AM
|
|
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 15,630
Thanks: 0
Thanked 30 Times in 18 Posts
|
|
Re: Better quality from Doga
The program is limited, but never the less a lot of fun to use.
If you want to spend the time to learn it, I guess you could do some really detailed sets. There are a lot of excellent ship sets out that were created with this program, but I agree with Kwok, I'd rather learn Povray/Moray.
__________________
Creator of the Star Trek Mod - AST Mod - 78 Ship Sets - Conquest Mod - Atrocities Star Wars Mod - Galaxy Reborn Mod - and Subterfuge Mod.
|
January 25th, 2003, 06:18 AM
|
BANNED USER
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Near Boston, MA, USA
Posts: 2,471
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Better quality from Doga
Its popularty in my case is price and ease of use. as kwok put it, my Tessellates are "connect the blocks" which for my vision is just right.
|
January 25th, 2003, 03:24 PM
|
|
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Midlothian, Va, USA
Posts: 2,142
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: Better quality from Doga
This link gives more parts for a bit more variety:
http://zircher.iwarp.com/fots_3d/library.htm
__________________
L++, Gd?, $++, Fr-, C---, S*, T?, Sf+++, Tcp, A+, Bb++@, M++, MpB5, MpT, MpD, MpSa, MpM, RV, Pwt, Fqt, Nd-, Rpt, G+, Au, Mmt,S++, Ss+,
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|