Do you have significant experience of Blender? Can it do most of what is required already - and sufficiently easily for the user? If you take my can example one aspect which might be better handled right now in AD is the design of the rectangular branding "paper" strip to wrap round the can. Your response came in while I was writing my reply to earlier posts above. Perhaps I'd better stop, before I mention 4D and the introduction of a time axis!Ĭant you just use Blender and call it a day? That could present difficulties and barriers for future development by some companies. The number of systems implementors who have done this kind of project or could tackle such projects might be rather small. There may not be so many people who have the experience to give a reliable opinion on both approaches. To get a better view of this would probably require input from designers who have used 3D and 2D packages for similar projects. To some extent I'm flying a kite here - and it may be that full 3D functionality is not a realistic prospect right now in a piece of mass consumer oriented software. If 3D performance scaled up by a significant factor compared with 2D performance, then this would be an issue - but I'm hoping and expecting that this would not be the case. As modern computers are becoming more powerful year on year I don't think that need be a huge barrier. Would it be computationally expensive - and therefore present performance limitations which would inhibit the end user? Maybe it would be slightly more computationally expensive than a 2D system, but I suspect that it wouldn't be greatly so. It might be a bit harder than implementing a 2D package, but it might not as it would be a generalisation of 2D - or rather think of a 2D package as being a constrained version of a 3D one. Would it be difficult or impossible to implement? Well - I don't think it would be impossible, as there are already tools which do this. Let's not make things too complicated, though! What would make things a bit harder would be if the ring pull on the can were pulled open or off, and then the interior of the can needed to be modelled for lighting - and also if there were any liquid still in the can. Once the basic shape/volume has been set up, then it could be rotated into different positions, and lighting effects added. I think from the designer's point of view this wouldn't be a lot harder than using AD or similar tools, and might actually be a lot easier. Then the branding material could be added as a rectangular strip which would be wrapped round the cylinder. These two objects could then be joined by a algebraic approach. The top of the can could be made from a similar approach to generate a circular top - and a ring pull could be added - something not shown in a 2D representation. Make the outline of the can - then use a surface of revolution ( ) about the central line to produce the cylinder, perhaps including the base. In 3D some of the steps would be similar, while some could actually be quicker. For example, somewhere there is a demonstration of making a can using AD - takes about 30 minutes. I wasn't going to suggest that "halfhearted 3D functionality" would be the outcome, but rather sufficiently good 3D functionality that it would be easy enough to implement. Wouldn’t implementing some halfhearted 3D functionality cause exactly that problem? People would start with AD thinking they can do 3D modelling and then discover that a lot of necessary things are missing and would be more disappointed than if they had known beforehand that AD is not a 3D tool.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |