Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Greebles can really let you totally build something new. I find I often go in with geometry editor to divide them into different sets of surfaces for different needs.
(Although sometimes they don't subdivide well, which is a bummer)
Just use the geometry editor. Select polygons on the climbing rungs and press Ctrl and the * on the numeric keypad, which should expand the selection to all of the connected polygons. Then hide the polys and delete the hidden polys. Save the figure/prop as an asset. You don't need anyone's permission to do things like that, you only need permission to redistribute the results. I often strip detail out of assets for kitbashing.
Well, shoot, who would have thought? I see a definite need to stop acquiring content willy-nilly (and on sale) and get better acquainted with what I can do with what I already have...and what I soon will have.
As I'm sure many before me have discovered, the former is much easier than the latter, provided the family budget can support another new habit...or vice, as the case may be.
Thanks, eh?
Don't forget Maclean's Everyday Morphing Primitives: https://www.daz3d.com/everyday-morphing-primitives
Since I'm getting into sci-fi, I seem to be using greebles and primitives in every scene.
I've even built a Frigate almost entirely out of them. (I used the Praetorian Cannon, that's about it for pre-made stuff.)
Oh thanks, now I need to get those too! (
, in case there was any doubt.)
I can feel the grocery budget dwindling...good thing I quit smoking...
Don't forget to look at Maclean's other stuff. Not only is he a master of useful props, but he's a heck of a nice guy, as well.
I own his entire catalogue because of that. It's easier to buy from someone who treats us consumers well.
DZfire as well, their Real Lights for DAZ Studio Iray are my go-to for lighting a scene: https://www.daz3d.com/real-lights-for-daz-studio-iray
I'll make a primitive plane, angle it towards the subject, and light it up with an emissive shader. The larger the plane, the softer the shadows.
There are a lot of kitbash resources here, even props from complete sets. Geometry Editor is our friend!
Just to add, if any of the parts you want (or don't want) have their own material/surface, you can turn off the unwanted parts in the geometry editor under the Surfaces list and then delete hidden polygons. It's often faster to do this first and then select using one of the modes to fine tune your cleanup.
Along these lines, if you pick the geometry editor, and then open up the Tool Settings pane. This will show you the various areas being used in the selected item (clothing, etc.), and in some cases can be used to hide specific surfaces (if they are subdivided within the baseline shape) without having to select the polygons individually for that particular surface. This requires that whatever you are looking at has it's own subdivision under tool settings, but this is a fast way to hide something that may not otherwise have a separately listed surface under surfaces. It's pretty easy to check, if you have the tool settings tab open, and may save you some time in specific cases.
Since we're discussing relative hardness of science fiction, I thought I'd bring this in, as it gives nice examples of the scale of hardness.
As for my own favorite example of believable, lived-in sci-fi, I'd have to go with Knights of Sidonia. It's a bit softer on the scale than some of the other examples we're working with here, but not a lot. (Yes, there's aliens and mech suits that jump to softer sci-fi, but the everyday lives of normal crewmembers is pretty hard sci-fi)
Here's a page about the ship itself. It also uses the 'gravity along thrust direction' approach, though the gravity is artificial and not tied directly to the thrust. If they ever have to actually maneuver the thing, the artificial gravity kicks out, and the results are pretty horrible. They do prepare for this by having railings everywhere that people can hook belt straps to, but the system isn't perfect.
Excellent references, none of which I've ever seen before. I especially like the Mohs Scale of Sci-Fi Hardness, which articulates my reason for putting 'hard' in half-quotes when I started this thread. I'm aware of the hardness problem (what long-time sci-fi addict isn't?), but couldn't have expressed it so well, or so amusingly.
Thanks, thistledownsname, you just gave me a reason to stay up half the night reading articles & chasing down cross-references.
Phew, that was a close call you almost got a reminder of Newton's Third Law of Motion...
Mohs Scale of Sci-Fi Hardness, I like it. So what about Niven, Quartz or Topaz? Clarke must be at least Topaz, if not Corundum.
For the sort of sci-fi content I'm interested in—and feel a distinct lack of at present—I'd be willing to settle for 4.5 to 5 on the Mohs scale (love that idea).
Much below 4 and you're in The Matrix territory (I couldn't sit through that movie, the main premise was too friggin' stupid) or the absolutely ludicrous movie they made out of Starship Troopers (couldn't sit through that one either).
Much above 5 and you're forced to consider what's likely rather than what's technically feasible given our present knowledge, theories, and resources. You'd also be forced to consider the political will, the public support, and the economic incentives it would take to get a serious space exploration and resource utilization program happening. With SpaceX as a sterling example (a solid 6 on the hardness scale), I'm prepared to assume all the above & proceed at anywhere between 4 and 5.
[ inevitable edit & afterthought: One thing the Mohs scale seems to ignore or sidestep (pending further investigation; it's fun to chase all the links-within-links) is that 'hard' doesn't necessarily preclude sociological exploration and/or emotional depth. Story is still story, people are still people, regardless of their external environment. ]
Eeuw, did you say sociology... we were discussing hardness of Science in SciFi and you used the other S word. LOL, just kidding. Space Exploration will be expensive. The financial payoff probably won't come from minerals extracted from the asteroid belt (though it might help offset the cost a bit). The real financial benefit will come from exploration itself. Development of new technologies, new applications etc. No one needed Velcro until the Space Race started, now look how useful it is! We went to the moon with computers less powerful than today's digital watches, yet the research that was required to enable our limited technology to perform and to develop new technologies has resulted in the first steps towards AI. The need to communicate more effectively, driven by the Space Race brought about the WWW, and now we have the internet... this forum is a decendant of the Space Race.
Now just imagine what a boost to human technology would occur if we had another JFK who would say "I believe..." Sure it would be expensive but what would the long term benefits be? Ask Columbus about the long term benefits of exploration.
Maybe our part is just to make some pretty renders. Meaningless maybe, but maybe they will be the very thing that inspires the kids who will grow up to explore the moons of Saturn!
One of the more interesting non-fiction reads in my home library is Mining the Sky by Professor John S. Lewis, then a co-director of the NASA/University of Arizona Space Engineering Research Center, among other things.
In it he estimates the value of the materials within a very small M-type (M for metallic) asteroid only 2km in diameter and with a relatively piddling mass of 30 billion tons. All his figures are based on the known compositions of various classes of meteorites, and quoted in 1996 dollars. According to Lewis, the iron and nickel alone would be worth about $8 quadrillion on Earth, though of course they're worth far more in space (provided we have the means to get at & use them for something). The volatiles would likewise be worth far more where they are, again provided we can get at & use them. But some metals would be well worth importing to Earth, for example platinum-group metals whose value he estimates at $6 quadrillion 1996 dollars.
Shocking, isn't it? As he (or maybe it was Jerry Pournelle) says: "It's raining soup, and we're too damn stupid to run outside with a bowl!" Paraphrasing from memory here, but that's the gist.
Another technology example - our semiconductor industry is a consequence of our (America's) lower-powered rockets.
Heck, my wife and I both have—drum roll, please—Space Pens, which wouldn't even exist if anyone at NASA had the brains to realize that ordinary graphite pencils would have worked just fine.
They are pretty good, though...
Of course, that's not true. Graphite is terrible in zero g... floating bits
Sorry, but it is true. Press a normal pencil against a writing surface & it'll make the appropriate marks regardless of the atmospheric pressure. The body might have to be made of something other than the Thuja plicata commonly used today, (i.e. the cells might outgas & possibly decohere), but the graphite would work just fine. Maybe if I had said 'lead' pencil instead?
[ Damn, I always have to edit these things
: the Soviet space program went the cheap route & used graphite pencils with perfect success, but I was wrong about NASA paying for the development of the Space Pen: that was done by the inventor, who apparently sold the idea to NASA. And a good idea it was... ]
http://mentalfloss.com/article/13103/russians-didnt-just-use-pencils-space
My sincere apologies, sir, I stand (sit, actually) corrected.
Good to know, and I'll think twice before doubting you again, or trusting Wikipedia.
Cheers, eh?
If you're buying!
And it took NASA 18 months to test it before approving it for use?
Just what were their testing criteria, anyway?
Does it write?
Does it write at all angles?
Does it leak in vacuum?
Done and approved in 30 minutes, not a year and a half!
Sure thing, William. Slip me a p.m., tell me what you like to drink & where I can send it, and it's on its way. Truly.
The fact is I enjoy learning, especially when it turns out I'm mistaken or have been misinformed. You have to admit, though, the common pen vs. pencil myth is kind of appealing. Yes/no?
Oh definitely. It appeals to that common man 'ha ha, stupid eggheads' + 'ha ha, stupid government waste'
Will it break and damage the life support system? No.
Will it leak and damage the life support system? No.
Will it work in extreme temperatures? Yes.
Will it burn rapidly in a high oxygen atmosphere like the pencils do? No.
Will Fisher spend the millions to develop and test it? Yes.
Will the pen cost a lot less for us than for anyone else? Yes.
;)
Does it put out any gasses or aromas that, being in a perpetually sealed, enclosed space such as a spaceship or a spacestation, could linger for a long time and become unpleasant?
Could those gasses prove toxic over a period of cumulative exposure?
Could those gasses turn toxic or otherwise pose a hazzard when combined with other gasses that are also present aboard the spacecraft?
Does it have an LiOH filter to remove the gasses?
Okay, okay, read the Material Data Sheets. Adding 5 minutes to my time estimate (for slow readers): Done and approved in 35 minutes. Satisfied?
And the air in a space station is constantly being replaced and replenished.
Throw in a patch kit, a bandaid, and some mercurichrome in case someone stabs themselves in the hand or punctures their suit.
In a nice presentation box made of T-6061 aluminum, or whatever the cool-tech-sounding material name of the day is.
(Hint: T-6061 is everyday, commonly used aluminum... but it sounds impressive!)
:)
Fun Thread. The trick is making the transition from the wonderful worlds of Heinlein, Gibson, Philip K. Dick and the other greats. When your hear someone is adapting something from... you get excited, but can it ever equal the images their writing created in your mind. But they do inspire!