Re: gEDA-user: )(

[Bill Gatliff <bgat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gareth Edwards wrote:
> 2009/10/2 Bill Gatliff <bgat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>   
>> Cheating or not, all the examples he posted look _awesome_!  :)
>>
>> Let's say the objective of the 3D effects/output in PCB were to test
>> against a 3D model of the whole system--- not just to visualize the
>> (populated) PCB.  Would Blender be the right output format then?
>>     
>
> I guess it depends what your goal is. Kai-Martin's assumed goal was to
> produce a (photo?-)realistic depiction of the layout/assembly. Blender
> is extremely well suited to that. But...
>
> To me that's not as useful from an engineering perspective as, say,
> being able to see your board, and, crucially, interact with both the
> view of the board and maybe its mechanical location in the system, in
> real time. This definitely does not need raytracing and is the kind of
> application OpenGL is well suited to.
>   

I guess in the ideal world, I would be able to interact with a 3D model
of the board/mechanicals/etc. with the highest visual resolution that my
impatience would allow, and then also be able to produce time-consuming,
photorealistic output for display to the customer.  The two objectives
wouldn't necessarily need to use the same tools post-PCB.


b.g.

-- 
Bill Gatliff
bgat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user